Tactics

in the Chess Opening 2

Open Games
Tactics in the Chess Opening 2

A.C. van der Tak & Friso Nijber

OPEN GAMES
© 2004 Interchess BV

Published by New In Chess, Alkmaar, The Netherlands

Revised version of ‘Winnen met Open Spelen’ published in 2001

www.newinchess.com

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission from
the publisher.

Cover design and drawing: Joppe Andriessen

Printing: A-D Druk BV, Zeist, The Netherlands

Supervisor: Willem F. Andriessen

Production: Joop de Groot

Translation: Piet Verhagen

Printed in the Netherlands

ISBN 90-5691-124-4
 Tactics in the Chess Opening

In six volumes our series Tactics in the Chess Opening covers the entire range of
openings from a tactical point of view.

Each volume has 250 fully annotated games, arranged by NICKEY, the opening
classification system of New In Chess.

Open Games

In this book you will find carefully selected and expertly annotated games full of
unexpected turns and brilliant surprise attacks. You can study these games or just
enjoy them, but either way they will end up making you a stronger player!

1. Sicilian Defence 1.e4 c5

2. Open Games 1.e4 e5
3. Semi-open Games 1.e4 rest
4. Queen’s Gambit 1.d4 d5
5. Indian Openings 1.d4 Nf6
6. Flank Openings and Gambits 1.c4, 1.Nf3 etc.
Contents

King’s Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4

Classical Defence 3…g5

Falkbeer Counter-Gambit 2…d5

Vienna Game 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3

Variations with 2…Nf6

Variations without 2…Nf6

King’s Pawn Openings 1.e4 e5

Centre Gambit 2.d4

Philidor Defence 2.Nf3 d6

Ponziani Opening 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3

Spanish Four Knights 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5

Two Knights Defence 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5

Traxler Counter-Gambit 4…Bc5

Ulvestad Variation 4…d5 5.exd5 b5

Max Lange Attack 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5

Two Knights Defence 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Nxe4

Scotch Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

Scotch Four Knights 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4

Mieses Variation 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5

Classical Variation 4…Bc5

Göring and Scotch Gambit 4.c3/4.Bc4

Italian Game 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

Giuoco Piano 4.c3

Evans Gambit 4.b4

Ruy Lopez 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5

Classical Variation 3…Bc5

Jänisch Gambit 3…f5

Berlin Defence 3…Nf6

Exchange Variation 3…a6 4.Bxc6

Neo-Steinitz Variation 3…a6 4.Ba4 d6

Arkhangelsk Variation 4…Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5/6…Bc5

Centre Attack 5.d4

Marshall Attack 8…d5

Main Line 9.h3

Open Variation 5…Nxe4

Petroff Defence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6

Variations with 3.d4

Variations with 3.Nxe5

 A.C. van der Tak

King’s Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.f4

KG 1.3

Tsaturian

Seny

Tbilisi 1973

1.e4 e5 2.f4

Partly due to the efforts of world top players like Bronstein and Spassky, the
King’s Gambit continued to play a prominent part in the second half of the
previous century. White has two main aims, first of all to start creating attacking
chances, especially against square f7, but also, and at least as importantly, to
establish superiority in the centre.

2…exf4 3.Nf3 g5
To this day, the classical defence has lost nothing of its charm.

4.Bc4 Bg7 5.0-0 d6 6.d4 h6 7.Nc3

White can also play 7.c3. For the immediate 7.g3?!, see the game Kujawski-
Czerwonski, 1989.

7…c6?!

According to the theory, 7…Nc6! is Black’s best bet; 7…Be6 has also been
played.

8.g3 Bh3 9.Rf2 fxg3?

Now White can sacrifice, but after any other move White would have taken on
f4, while 9…g4 10.Nh4 was no option either, of course.

10.Bxf7+! Kxf7?

This loses by force. 10…Kd7 would have left Black some fighting chances, but
who likes to play such a move?

11.Ne5++ Ke6

11…Ke8 is met by 12.Qh5+, and mate. 11…Ke7 12.Rf7+ is curtains as well.

12.d5+! Kxe5 13.hxg3

The black king will not be able to leave the centre and live. White is threatening
14.Be3, but also 14.g4. Hence Black’s next move.

13…Bd7 14.Be3 c5 15.Ne2 Qb6

Otherwise White plays 16.Bd4+, and mate.

16.Qd2 Ne7 17.Qc3+! Kxe4 18.Qd3+ Ke5 19.Re1

More misery for the black king: now the e-file has been opened as well.

19…Nxd5
Or 19…Bf5 20.Bxg5 Bxd3 21.Nc3+ Kd4 22.Rf4+, and mate.
20.Bd4+! cxd4 21.Qe4+!

An elegant finale.

Black resigned in view of 21…Kxe4 22.Nc3 mate.

KG 1.3

Kujawski

Czerwonski

Slupsk 1989

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 h6 5.d4 g5 6.0-0 Bg7

The Hanstein Variation is one of the oldest and most reliable set-ups for Black in
the Classical Defence (3…g5). White will not find it easy to break through the
pawn phalanx.

7.g3?!

Better moves are 7.c3 and 7.Nc3.

7…g4

Another good option is 7…Bh3 8.Rf2 Nc6 9.Bb5 (or 9.gxf4 g4, followed by
10…Bd4) 9…Nf6! 10.d5 a6 11.dxc6 (11.Ba4 b5) 11…axb5, with advantage for
Black, according to an analysis by Estrin.

8.Nh4 f3 9.Be3 Nf6 10.Nc3 Nc6 11.a3?!

This is more or less an ad hoc move, but already the white position is not easy to
play.

11…0-0 12.Qd2 Nxe4! 13.Nxe4 d5 14.Bxh6

14.Bd3 dxe4 15.Bxe4 Nxd4 also favours Black.

14…dxe4 15.c3?!

Relatively better is 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.c3, although Black is better after 16…Ne5.
15…Nxd4! 16.cxd4

16.Bxg7 Ne2+ will cost White his queen, while 16.Rad1 Ne2+ 17.Bxe2 Qxd2
18.Bxd2 fxe2 loses as well.

16…Qxd4+ 17.Qxd4 Bxd4+ 18.Kh1 Re8

White is utterly lost.

19.Rad1

19.Ng6 loses a piece after 19…Be6!: 20.Bxe6 Rxe6.

19…c5 20.b4 Be6 21.Bxe6 Rxe6 22.Nf5 e3

White is at the end of his tether, so he decides to fall on his sword.

23.bxc5 e2 24.Rxd4 exf1R

Mate.

KG 1.4

Glazkov

Soloviev

Moscow 1975
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5

The Allgaier Gambit, which is regarded as not entirely correct these days.

5…h6 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Nc3

According to the theory, 7.Bc4+ d5! 8.Bxd5+ Kg7 9.d4 f3 10.gxf3 Nf6 11.Nc3
Bb4 12.Bc4 gxf3 favours Black, as does 7.d4 f3; but in the latter case this is far
from clear-cut.

7…Nc6

According to Glazkov, 7…f3!? 8.d4 Be7! is Black’s strongest option.

8.d4

8.Bc4+ would lead to a position from the Vienna Game. See the game Shulman-
Marciano, Ubeda 1997, on page 38.

8…d5 9.Bxf4

Less good is 9.exd5?! Qe7+ 10.Kf2 g3+ 11.Kg1 Nxd4! 12.Qxd4 Qc5 13.Ne2
Qb6, with promising play for Black, going by the old game Corzo-Capablanca,
Havana 1901.

9…Bb4

Both 9…Kg7, 9…Bg7 and 9…dxe4 offer White good chances.

10.Be2 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Nf6

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings quotes Keres here: ‘advantage for Black’!
I take issue with this assessment.

12.0-0 Kg7
13.c4! dxe4

In the game Laesson-Kakhiani, Zheleznovodsk 1987, Black took a different

route: 13…Nxe4 14.cxd5 Nc3 (if 14…Qxd5 then 15.c4!, as 15…Qxd4 16.Qxd4
Nxd4 fails to 17.Be5+) 15.dxc6! Nxd1 16.Be5+ Kg6 17.Bd3+ Kh5 18.cxb7 Bd7
(or 18…Bxb7 19.Rf5+) 19.bxa8Q Qxa8 20.Raxd1 Rf8 21.Rxf8 Qxf8 22.Rf1
Qe8 (after 22…Qb4, 23.Bg3 also wins. There is no remedy against the
manoeuvre Rf1-e1-e5, according to Glazkov) 23.Bg3 Qg8 24.Re1, and Black
resigned.

14.d5 Ne7 15.Be5 Rf8 16.Qd4!

The pin is fatal. Black will be unable to extricate himself.

16…Ng6 17.Bxf6+ Rxf6 18.h5 Nf8 19.Rf4 Nh7 20.Raf1 Bd7

Or 20…Qe7 21.Rxe4 Qf7 22.Ref4 and 23.Bd3, winning (Glazkov).

21.Bxg4 Bxg4 22.Rxg4+ Kf7

After 22…Ng5 White plays 23.Qe5, and wins.

23.Qxe4 Rxf1+ 24.Kxf1 Ng5 25.Qg6+ Ke7 26.Qg7+ Nf7

Or 26…Kd6 27.Qxh6+.

27.Re4+ Kd6 28.Qg3+ Kc5 29.Qf2+

Black resigned.

KG 1.4

Short
 Shirov

Las Vegas 1999

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5

The Kieseritzky Variation is still regarded as the main line.

5…d6

This set-up is named after the nineteenth-century chess player and banker Ignatz
von Kolisch, who was famous for his attacking prowess. In the interest of
speeding up his development Black immediately returns his extra pawn.

6.Nxg4 Nf6 7.Nxf6+

The alternative is 7.Nf2, as was played in, for example, an earlier game Short-
Shirov, Madrid 1997.

7…Qxf6 8.Nc3 Nc6

Other possibilities are 8…Be6 and 8…c6.

9.Bb5 a6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Qf3 Rg8 12.d3 Bh6 13.Qf2 Rb8 14.Ne2 Rxb2?!

This exchange sacrifice is probably incorrect. 14…f3!? 15.Qxf3 (bad is

15.Bxh6? Rxg2 16.Bg7 Qxg7 17.Qxf3 Rxb2, and Black wins) 15…Qxf3
16.gxf3 Bxc1 17.Rxc1 Rxb2 would have resulted in a roughly equal endgame.

15.Bxb2 Qxb2 16.0-0 Qxc2

16…Bh3 is refuted by 17.Rab1. If the queen withdraws, White plays 18.Rb8+.

17.Rac1!

Stronger than 17.Nxf4?! Qxf2+ 18.Rxf2 Bg7 19.Rc1 Bd4, and Black wins back
the exchange.

17…Qxa2
18.Nd4?!

Here White misses his chance: 18.Rxc6! is good for him, e.g. 18…Bh3 19.Nxf4
Qxf2+ 20.Kxf2 Bxf4 21.gxh3 or 18…f3 19.Qxf3 Bg4 20.Qf2 Bxe2
 analysis diagram

21.Rxa6! Rxg2+ (or 21…Qxa6 22.Qxf7+ Kd8 23.Qxg8+ Kd7 24.Qxh7+ Kc6
25.Qxh6 Bxf1 26.Qc1+ Kd7 27.Qxf1) 22.Qxg2 Be3+ 23.Kh1 Qxa6 24.Qxe2.
After the text an endgame arises in which Black, with all his pawns, has good
compensation for the exchange.

18…Qxf2+ 19.Kxf2 f3! 20.Rxc6 fxg2 21.Rg1 Kd8 22.Nf5

Preventing 22…Bh3.

22…Bxf5 23.exf5 Rg4 24.Rc4 Rxc4 25.dxc4 Ke7 26.Kf3 Kf6 27.Kg4 Bd2
28.Rxg2 Bb4 29.Kf4 a5 30.Rg8 a4 31.Rc8 d5 32.cxd5 h5 33.Ke4 Bd6 34.Ra8
a3 35.Re8 Be5 36.Ra8 Bd6

Draw.

KG 1.4

Sanchez

Rodriguez

Matanzas 1993

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.d4

In this Berlin Variation Black has counterplay after 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.d4
Nh5, Riemersma-Van der Sterren, Eindhoven 1993.

6…d6 7.Nd3 Nxe4

Black is by no means forced to gobble up this pawn at once. In Federov-

Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee 2001, Black successfully inserted 7…Nc6 8.c3. Maybe
White could consider 8.d5 Ne5 9.Nc3.

8.Bxf4 Qe7

It is possible that 8…Bg7!? is stronger: 9.c3 (good for Black is 9.Nc3 Nxc3
10.bxc3 c5, Spassky-Fischer, Mar del Plata 1960) 9…0-0 10.Nd2 Re8 11.Nxe4
Rxe4+ 12.Kf2 c5!, and White has problems.

9.Be2!

Less good is 9.Qe2?!; a frightening example is Hurt-Baca, correspondence game

1988: 9…Nc6 10.c3 Bf5! 11.Nd2 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 Re8 13.d5? (13.Nc4 was
relatively better. Black can then choose between Estrin’s recommendation 13…
Qd7 14.Ne3 h5, followed by 15…Bh6, and Baca’s 13…Nxc3!? 14.Qxe7 Nxa2+
15.Kb1 Bxe7 16.Kxa2 Nxd4, with compensation for the piece) 13…Nxc3!
14.Qxe7 Nxa2+ 15.Kb1 Nxe7 16.Kxa2 Nxd5, and White resigned.

9…Nc6 10.c3

A good alternative is 10.Nc3 Nxc3 (bad is 10…Nxd4? 11.Nd5 Qd8 12.Nf2!, and
Black might as well resign!) 11.bxc3 Bf5 12.g3, followed by 13.0-0, with
compensation for the pawn (Rodriguez).

10…Bf5 11.d5 Nb8

11…Ne5!? may be stronger: 12.Bxe5 dxe5 13.Bxg4 Ng3 14.Rh3 h5 15.Bxf5

Nxf5, with advantage for Black, again according to Rodriguez.

12.0-0

Interesting but risky. Safer is 12.Nf2!?.

12…Qxh4 13.Nd2 g3 14.Nf3 Qh5 15.Qa4+ Nd7 16.Rae1

The other rook move, 16.Rfe1!?, may be stronger.

16…0-0-0! 17.Bd1

17.Qxa7? is met by 17…Bg4, and wins.

17…Bg7?!

Black misses his chance: 17…Nxc3! 18.bxc3 (or 18.Qd4 Bxd3 19.Qxh8 Bxf1,
with advantage) 18…Bxd3 19.Qd4 Bxf1 20.Qxh8 Bc4, with favourable play.

18.Qxa7

Bad is 18.Rxe4 in view of 18…Nb6 19.Qb4 a5.

18…Nd2

18…Bg4? doesn’t work: 19.Rxe4 Bxf3 20.Rxf3 Qh2+ 21.Kf1 Qh1+ 22.Qg1,
and after 18…Nxc3?! White goes 19.Nb4! Nxd1 20.Rxd1, with a strong attack
(Rodriguez).

19.Nb4!

Weak is 19.Bxd2? Bxd3. The text gives White sufficient counterplay in the nick
of time.

19…Nxf3+

And not 19…Nxf1? 20.Qa8+ Nb8 21.Nc6! Kd7 22.Ba4, and White wins.

20.Rxf3 Qh2+ 21.Kf1 Qh1+ 22.Qg1 Qxg1+ 23.Kxg1

Here the players agreed a draw.

KG 2.1

Fedorov

Ibragimov
Katrineholm 1999

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6

After Fischer lost against Spassky’s King’s Gambit in 1960 he delved deeply
into this subject-matter. He published the result, ‘The Refutation of the King’s
Gambit’, in 1961, in the first issue of American Chess Quarterly.

With 3…d6 Black aims to hang on to the gambit pawn without giving White the
chance to attack his pawn chain at once with 4.h4.

4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1

This modern interpretation of the King’s Gambit would have greatly astonished
the old masters. But the piece sacrifice 6.Ng5 f6! 7.Nh3 gxh3 8.Qh5+ Kd7 is
demonstrably bad, so White has no choice.

6…f5

Other possibilities are 6…Qf6 and 6…Bh6.

7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Bxf4 fxe4 9.d5!?

Several games saw 9.Qd2. Fedorov, a great lover and expert of the King’s
Gambit, ploughs his own furrow, however.

9…Nh5

After 9…Bg7 10.h5!? Black faces a choice: either to allow h5-h6 or to weaken
square g6 by playing h6 himself.

10.Bg5 Be7 11.Bb5+

11…Kf7?

This move looks suspect. 11…Bd7? obviously doesn’t work in view of 12.Qxg4,
and the h5 hangs with check; but 11…c6 is the critical move.

Fedorov calls the ensuing position unclear. Let’s look ahead a bit: 12.dxc6 bxc6
13.Qd5 (13.Bxe7!? is also possible: 13…Qxe7 (maybe 13…Kxe7 is better)
14.Bxc6+ Nxc6 15.Qd5 Rb8 16.Qxh5+ Kd8 17.0-0-0, with advantage for White)
13…Bd7 (weaker is 13…Ng3?! 14.Nxe4 Nxh1 15.Bxc6+ Nxc6 16.Qxc6+ Qd7
(after 16…Bd7? 17.Nxd6+ Bxd6 18.Qxd6 Black may as well resign) 17.Qxa8
Qb7 18.Qxb7 Bxb7 19.Bxe7 Kxe7 20.Nf2, and White has an endgame a pawn
up) 14.Bxe7 cxd5 15.Bxd8 Bxb5 16.Nxb5 Kxd8 17.Ne2, with an approximately
equal endgame.

12.Nge2 a6

Fedorov gives 12…Bxg5 13.hxg5 Qxg5 14.Qd4, with a winning advantage for
White.

13.0-0+ Kg8

Black has brought down a lot of trouble on his head with his 11th move. After
13…Kg6 14.Nxe4! axb5 15.Qd3 Kg7 16.Nf4 White also has a vigorous attack
(Fedorov).

14.Ba4 Bxg5

Or 14…b5 15.Bb3 (another option is 15.Nxe4 bxa4 16.Nf4) 15…Bxg5 16.hxg5

Qxg5 17.Qd4, with a winning attack: 17…Qe5 18.Qf2, again according to
Fedorov.

15.hxg5 Nd7 16.Nf4 Nxf4 17.Qxg4! Ne5

Or 17…Ng6 18.Qe6+.

18.Qxf4 Kg7 19.Nxe4

It’s all over.

19…b5 20.Bb3 Bd7 21.Nf6 h5 22.Rae1

Black resigned in view of 22…Qe7 23.Nxd7 Qxd7 24.Qf6+, followed by

25.Rxe5.

KG 2.1

Fedorov

Notkin

St Petersburg 1996

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h6

With this move, thought up by the Austrian master Albert Becker, Black has
roughly the same intentions as in the Fischer Variation 3…d6.

4.d4

An amusing idea is 4.b3, which Fedorov played in a later game: 4…d5 (the point
being that White 4…g5 can reply 5.Bb2) 5.exd5 Nf6 6.Bb2 Be7, with
complicated play, Fedorov-Svidler, Pula 1997.

4…g5 5.Nc3 d6 6.g3!?

Black simply meets 6.h4 with 6…Bg7.

6…fxg3 7.hxg3 Bg7 8.Bc4 Nc6

An alternative is 8…Bg4 9.Rf1 Qd7 10.Qd3 Bh5 11.Bd2 a6, and it was unclear
whether White had sufficient compensation for his pawn, Gallagher-Jürgens,
Bad Wörishofen 1994.

9.Be3 Bg4 10.0-0

Another option may be 10.Rf1, possibly followed by castling queenside.

10…Nf6 11.Qd3 0-0

Safer is 11…Bh5, although after 12.Bb5 White has compensation for the pawn
(Fedorov).

12.Nxg5

A promising piece sacrifice, although by defending correctly Black will be able

to stay afloat.

12…hxg5 13.Bxg5
13…Nb4

After 13…Be6 Fedorov indicated 14.Rf4 Nb4 15.Qf3 Bxc4 16.Bxf6 Bxf6
17.Rxf6 Kg7 18.Rf4, with an attack, but Hoeksema analysed a bit further: 18…
Rh8 19.b3 Be6 20.d5 Bh3 21.Rxf7+ Kg8, and the position is unclear.

14.Qd2 c5

Another little variation from Fedorov: 14…Be6 15.d5 Bh3 16.Rf2 Qe7 17.Qf4
Qe5 18.Qxe5 dxe5 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Rxf6 Nxc2 21.Rc1 Nd4 22.Bb5, with
slightly better play for White.

15.Rf4 Bh3 16.Qh2 Ng4?

Wrong! Correct is 16…cxd4! 17.Qxh3 dxc3 18.Raf1 cxb2 19.Bxf6 Bxf6

20.Rg4+ Bg7 21.Rxg7+ Kxg7 22.Qg4+ Kh6 (22…Kh7? loses because of
23.Kg2), and White is forced to go for perpetual check with 23.Qh3+, as Black
can now meet 23.Kg2? with 23…Qg5 24.Rh1+ Kg6, and White is finished. Thus
an analysis by Hoeksema.

17.Qxh3!

But not 17.Rxg4? Bxd4+ 18.Kh1 Bxg4 19.Bxd8 Bf3+, and Black wins.

17…Qxg5 18.Rxg4 Qe3+ 19.Kg2 Qd2+ 20.Ne2 Nxc2 21.Rh1 Ne3+ 22.Kf3

Black resigned.

KG 2.1

Salmensuu

Blehm
Calicut 1998

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Ne7

A bit unusual. Black prepares the counter-push d7-d5 without giving White the
chance to chase away the knight with e4-e5.

4.d4 d5 5.Nc3 dxe4 6.Nxe4 Nd5!?

6…Ng6?! can be met strongly by 7.h4!, e.g. 7…Qe7?! 8.Kf2! Bg4 (8…Qxe4
runs into 9.Bb5+ Kd8 10.Re1, winning the queen) 9.h5 Nh4 10.Bxf4 Nc6
11.Bb5, with a large advantage for White, Spassky-Seirawan, Montpellier 1985.

7.Qe2

The game Riemersma-Sokolov, Amsterdam 1995, saw 7.Bc4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0
9.Ne5 Be6, with good play for Black. 7.c4!? Ne3 8.Qe2 may not be bad for
White: 8…Bb4+ 9.Kf2 Ng4+ 10.Kg1 0-0 11.Bxf4 Re8 12.Qc2 Bf5 13.Bd3, thus
an analysis by Bangiev. Another possibility is 7.Bd3!? Be7 8.c4 Ne3 9.Qe2.

7…Bb4+!? 8.c3

8.Nc3+ Be6 9.Bd2 0-0 is good for Black.

8…0-0!

A correct piece sacrifice. Black will now get sufficient counter-chances along the
e-file.

9.cxb4 Re8 10.Kf2 Bf5 11.Ne5 Nc6! 12.Nc3

After 12.Nxc6 bxc6 Black simply wins back his piece with advantage.

12…Ndxb4 13.Qc4 Nc2

Or 13…Nxe5 14.dxe5 Nc2, transposing to the variation under Black’s 14th
move.

14.Rb1

The position after 14.Qxf7+ Kh8 15.Nxc6 bxc6 (if 15…Qh4+, White simply
plays 16.Kg1) 16.Qxf5 Qxd4+ 17.Kf3 Nxa1 18.Be2 g6 is not overly clear, but
after 19.Qd3 it seems that White will be able to hold.
14…N2xd4?!

This leads to a peaceful ending. Worth considering is 14…Nxe5! 15.dxe5 Ne3

16.Qxf4 Ng4+ 17.Kg1 Bxb1 18.Qxg4 Rxe5, with slightly better play for Black,
according to Shulman and Kapengut. And it is true that the position looks good
for Black, as after 19.Nxb1 Black’s reply 19…Qd6, threatening 20…Qc5+, is
extremely annoying.

15.Nxf7 Qh4+ 16.g3 Qf6 17.Nh6++ Kh8 18.Nf7+

18.Nxf5?! Qxf5 is playing with fire: 19.gxf4 Qc2+, or 19.Kg1 Ne5.

18…Kg8 19.Nh6++ Kh8 20.Nf7+ Kg8 21.Nh6++

Draw.

KG 2.2

Bronstein

Petrosian

Tbilisi 1963

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nf6

The Schallopp defence, whose nomenclator played it for the first time in 1885,
but which had been known for ages before. A drawback of this line is that the
knight will often find itself sidelined on h5.

4.e5 Nh5 5.Qe2

After 5.d4 d6 6.Qe2 d5 White is slightly better.

5…Be7 6.d4 0-0 7.g4!? fxg3 8.hxg3

In Keres-Alekhine, Salzburg 1942, White played 8.Nc3, but after 8…d5 9.Bd2?!
(stronger is 9.Qg2) 9…Nc6, followed by 10…Bg4, Black was better. Later,
8.Qg2 was recommended.

8…Nxg3 9.Qh2 Nxh1 10.Bd3

10…g6

Alekhine has recommended 10…f5 11.exf6 g6 in this position. Bronstein had

intended to continue after 10…f5 with 11.Nc3, followed by 12.Bd2, 13.0-0-0
and 14.Rxh1.

11.Qh6!?

A typical Bronstein move! He coolly leaves Nh1 where it is. Also possible was
11.Bh6, followed by 12.Nd2, and 13.0-0-0.

11…d5 12.Nc3 Ng3 13.Ng5

From this point on, the game takes on a rather forced character. The only
possible deviation was the perpetual check that Black could have allowed on
move 15.

13…Bxg5 14.Bxg5 f6 15.Bxg6 Qe7

A rook to the good, Petrosian is apparently not keen on a draw.

16.Nxd5 Qg7 17.Bxf6!

Very beautiful! The white queen is taboo in view of 18.Ne7 mate! Now Black
has to liquidate, and a drawish endgame arises.

17…Rxf6 18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.Qxg7+ Kxg7 20.exf6+ Kxh7 21.Nxc7 Nc6

22.Nxa8 Nxd4 23.0-0-0 Bf5

Draw.

KG 2.3

Beninsh
 Tripolsky

Correspondence game 1992

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7

The Cunningham Variation, which has been a popular way to counteract the
King’s Gambit over the years.

4.Nc3 Bh4+

This is an obvious check, but another good move is 4…Nf6 5.e5 (or 5.d4 d5,
with counterplay) 5…Ng4.

5.Ke2 d5 6.Nxd5 Nf6 7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.d4 0-0

There have also been games in which Black went 8…Bg4 9.c3 Nc6. This, too,
leaves us with a position that is hard to assess.

9.Qd3 Bg4 10.e5 Qb6 11.g3!? Nc6

After 11…fxg3? 12.hxg3 Black is lumbered with an unsolvable problem along

the h-file.

12.c3 f6 13.e6

After 13.gxf4?! fxe5 Black has great compensation for his piece. 13.exf6 Bxf6
also favours Black. With the text White tries to keep the position closed.

13…Rad8
14.Bg2?!

Black was threatening 14…Ne5. Bangiev indicates 14.Kf2 in order to parry this
threat, but even then 14…Ne5! is not to be sneezed at: 15.Nxe5 fxg3+ 16.hxg3
fxe5+.

14…Rfe8 15.Kf1

White is still not taking on h4, but maybe he ought to have done by now:
15.gxh4 Ne5 16.Qd1 Rxe6 17.Kf1, and Black will still have to prove the
correctness of his play, for example with 17…Nxf3 18.Bxf3 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 Rde8.

15…Ne5 16.Nxe5 fxe5 17.gxh4

Finally… But now White is faced with new attacking options for Black.

17…f3! 18.Rg1

Or 18.Bxf3 Bxf3!; but not 18…Rf8? in view of 19.e7.

18…Rxe6! 19.h3

Or 19.Bh1 Bh3+ 20.Kf2 exd4 21.c4 Qd6 22.Rg3 Re2+ 23.Kf3 Rxh2, and the
black attack strikes home.

19…fxg2+ 20.Rxg2 Bf3

Now White is helpless.

21.Rf2 e4 22.Qc4 Kh8 23.Be3 Qd6 24.Bf4 Qxf4

White resigned.

KG 2.4
 City of Varna

City of Sofia

City Contest by telex 1980

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 Bh4+ 5.Kf1 d5 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Nc3

Another good possibility is 7.Bb3!? Bg4 8.d3 (very good for Black is 8.Bxf7+?!
Kxf7 9.Ne5+ Ke7 10.Nxg4 Qd4 11.c3 Qd3+ 12.Kg1 Qxe4 13.Nf2 Qf5 14.d4
Re8, Popovych-Hector, Gausdal 1990) 8…0-0 9.Nc3, and it is unclear whether
Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn.

7…Nxd5 8.Nxd5 f5!? 9.Nxh4 Qxh4 10.Nxc7+ Kd8 11.Nxa8 fxe4 12.Qe1 Qh5!

An old analysis by Lowtzky demonstrated that 12…Qe7? 13.Qf2 Nc6 falls short
in view of 14.b4! Qxb4 (14…e3 15.Qe1!) 15.Qh4+ Kd7 16.Qg4+ Kd8 17.Qxg7.

13.Qxe4 Re8 14.Qf3

After 14.Qxf4? Qe2+ 15.Kg1 Qe1+ 16.Qf1 Qh4! White is in trouble.

14…Qe5 15.Kf2 Qc5+ 16.Kf1

16…Qe5

In the game Anderson-Horseman, Nottingham 1954, 16…Nc6? turned out to be

no good on account of 17.Nc7! Kxc7 18.d4! Qc4+ (18…Qxd4 19.Qxf4+)
19.Qd3.

17.Kf2

If White wants to avoid a draw, he can play 17.Qf2, but then 17…f3! is strong.

17…Nc6! 18.c3

This fails to prevent the knight coming to d4, but 18.d3? is not good in view of
18…Nd4 19.Qxf4 Qe2+.

18…Nd4! 19.Qd3

It is clear that 19.cxd4? fails to 19…Qxd4+ 20.Kf1 Bf5.

19…Qe2+ 20.Qxe2 Rxe2+ 21.Kf1 f3 22.Rg1 f2 23.cxd4

23.Rh1 is met by 23…Bf5, with the horrible threat of 24…Bd3+.

23…b6!

Now 23…Bf5 would have been strongly met by 24.g4!, e.g. 24…Bd3 (24…
fxg1Q+ 25.Kxg1 Bxg4 26.d3) 25.Rg3. After the text the game peters out in an
equal endgame.

24.d3 fxg1Q+ 25.Kxg1 Bb7

Draw.

KG 2.4
 Podgorny

Stulik

Czechoslovakia 1956

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nc3

The sacrifice 6.Bxf7 Kxf7 7.Ne5+ quickly leads to success after the greedy 7…
Ke6?, e.g.: 8.Nxe4 Kxe5 9.d4+ Kxe4 10.0-0 g5 11.Bxf4 gxf4 12.Rxf4!! Kxf4
13.Qh5!, and Black is irrevocably doomed to be mated. Correct is 7…Kg8 8.Ne4
Bh4+, with chances on both sides.

5…Nxe4 6.Ne5 Nd6

This attack on Bc4 gains a tempo. On the other hand, however, the knight is not
well placed on d6, as it is blocking its own queenside. An example with 6…
Bh4+ is Noordijk-Thomas, correspondence game 1947/48: 7.g3 Qe7 (7…fxg3
8.0-0!) 8.0-0 Qxe5 9.d4 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.Bxf7+! Kxf7 12.gxh4 Rf8
13.Rxf4+ Kg8 14.Rxf8+ Kxf8 15.Qf3+ Kg8 16.Bh6! Qb6 17.Rf1 Qg6+ 18.Kh1
Qe8 19.Bxg7! d5 20.Bh6 Nd7 21.Rg1+, and Black resigned.

A nice bashing game! Another possibility is 6…d5, but Black’s strongest option
seems to be 6…Ng5!.

7.Bb3 Bh4+

This yields a few pawns, but it also exposes all the files on the kingside. The
alternatives are 7…0-0 and 7…Nc6.

8.g3 fxg3 9.0-0 gxh2+ 10.Kh1 Bf6

Equally unsatisfactory is 10…0-0 11.d4, e.g. 11…Bf6 12.Qh5 Nc6 13.Rf3!, and
White has a winning attack.

11.d4 b6

11…0-0 is met by 12.Qh5 again.

12.Qh5 Bb7+ 13.Kxh2 g6

13…0-0 is met strongly by 14.Ng4! Ne8 15.Bg5! Bxg5 16.Rxf7!, with a winning
game: 16…d5 17.Raf1 Nf6 18.R1xf6!, or 14…Bxd4 15.Bg5 Qc8 (or 15…Qe8
16.Rae1 Ne4 17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.Rxf7!, winning: 18…Rxf7 19.Rxe4 Qf8
20.Qxf7+ Qxf7 21.Re8 mate) 16.Bf6! gxf6 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.Rxf6 Qe8
19.Rg1+ Kh8 20.Rh6 Be4 21.Qg5 Bg6 22.Qf6+ Kg8 23.Rgxg6+, and mate.

14.Qh6
14…Bg7

This is what Black had based his defence on. 15.Qxg7 is impossible in view of
15…Qh4+ 16.Kg1 Qg3 mate! But other moves weren’t all that attractive either:
14…Bxe5+ 15.dxe5 Nf5 16.Rxf5! gxf5 17.Bg5 or 14…Qe7 15.Nxf7! Nxf7
16.Bxf7+ Qxf7 17.Bg5 Be5+ 18.dxe5 Qe6 19.Bf6, in both cases with a large
advantage for White.

15.Nxf7!

You cannot blame Black for not having taken account of this magnificent reply
in his calculations.

15…Bxh6

Or 15…Qe7 16.Bg5 Bxh6 17.Bxe7 Nxf7 18.Rae1, winning.

16.Nxd6+ cxd6

16…Ke7 17.Bxh6 Kxd6 won’t help either in view of 18.Bf4+.

17.Bf7+ Ke7 18.Bxh6 Qg8

Desperation; but 18…Nc6 runs into 19.Nd5, and mate, while 18…Qc7 is met by
19.Bg5+ Kf8 20.Bd5+ Kg7 21.Rf7+ Kg8 22.Bh6, and mate on the next move.

19.Bxg8

Black resigned.

KG 2.4

Belotti
 Loncar

Bükfürdo 1995

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.0-0

Other possibilities are 6.Nc3 and 6.d4.

6…d5

6…Nc6 gives White the slightly better position after 7.d4 d5 8.exd6 Bxd6
9.Qe1+ Qe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7 11.Nc3.

7.exd6 Qxd6!? 8.d4 0-0 9.Nc3 Qh6!?

Black wants to play Be6 and meet White’s Bxe6 with Qxe6, without being
troubled by Nb5. Hence this waste of tempo with the queen.

10.h3

After 10.Qe1 Black has a good reply in 10…Be6, as 11.d5? Bc5+ is good for
Black. Also, after 10.Nd5 Bd6 11.Re1 Be6 12.h3 c6 13.Nb6 axb6 14.Bxe6 fxe6
15.hxg4 Qg6 Black has good play. Thus the Czech player Blatny.

10…Ne3 11.Bxe3 fxe3 12.Ne5?!

Stronger is 12.Nd5 Bd6 13.Qd3 Re8 14.Rae1, and White wins back the pawn.

12…Be6

12…Bf6 13.Nd5 Bxe5 14.dxe5 Be6 15.Qe2 Nc6 is also strong, Shofman-
Antoshin, Moscow 1953.

13.Bxe6 Qxe6 14.Qf3

Black is still a pawn ahead and White has to waste some time to win it back.
14…c5! 15.Qxb7 cxd4 16.Nd5

According to Blatny, Black has a strong initiative for the sacrificed exchange
after 16.Qxa8 dxc3 17.Nd3 Nc6 18.Qb7 Rb8 19.Qa6 e2. Yet White would have
been better off going for this, because after the text-move he is swept off the
board.

16…Bd6 17.Nf3

17.Qxa8 is met by 17…Qxe5 18.Nf4 g5, winning.

17…e2

The irony of fate: the very pawn that White had allowed to come to f4 on his
second move seals his doom!

18.Qxa8 exf1Q+ 19.Kxf1

Or 19.Rxf1 Nd7 20.Qc6 Nb6! (but not 20…Bh2+? 21.Kxh2 Qxc6 22.Ne7+, and
White wins back the queen!) 21.Nxb6 Bh2+, winning the queen (Blatny).

19…Bg3 20.Qb7 Rd8 21.c4 dxc3 22.Nxc3 Qe3! 23.Ne4 Qd3+

White resigned. After 24.Kg1 Qd1+ it is totally finished.

KG 2.8

Hector

Ziatdinov
Antwerp 1994

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd5 Nf6 5.Bc4

Besides 5.Bb5+ (see the game Hahn-Class, 1983), 5.Nc3 is also a serious
alternative.

5…Nxd5 6.0-0 Be6

For 6…Be7, see Gallagher-Balashov, 1991.

7.Bb3

Certainly not 7.d4? Ne3! 8.Bxe3 Bxc4, and Black wins the exchange.

7…Be7 8.c4!?

Good for Black is 8.d4 0-0 9.c4 Ne3! 10.Bxe3 fxe3 11.Nc3 Bg4; 12.Qd3 is then
met strongly by 12…Nc6.

8…Nb6 9.d4!? Nxc4

9…0-0 is met simply by 10.d5 and 11.Bxf4, and White has the better of the play.

10.Bxf4 c6

After 10…0-0?! 11.Qe2 b5 12.Nc3 a6 13.a4 Black was in an awkward

predicament, Hebden-Geller, Moscow 1986. 10…Nb6!? may the best of a bad
lot here, e.g. 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Qe2 Nc6 13.Nc3 Qd7, although 14.Ne5!? is quite
a nuisance then.

11.Qe2 b5 12.a4 a6 13.axb5 cxb5 14.Nc3 Nc6 15.Rad1 Bd5

Forced, as the threat of 16.d5 has to be eliminated.

16.Ne5! N6xe5

Black is still not in a position to castle: 16…0-0 17.Nxd5 Qxd5 18.Nxc6 Qxc6
19.Qxe7, losing a piece.

17.Bxe5 f6

And still 17…0-0 is impossible: 18.Bc7! Qxc7 19.Nxd5, again losing a piece!
18.Rxf6?!

More accurate is 18.Nxd5! Qxd5 19.Rxf6 gxf6 20.Bxf6 Ra7 21.Bxh8, with a
large advantage.

18…Nxe5?

Now Black is lost. Stronger is 18…gxf6 19.Bxf6, and now the beautiful resource
19…Bf3! 20.gxf3 (20.Qxf3? Bxf6) 20…Rg8+ 21.Kh1 Ra7 keeps Black alive.
Thus the computer Fritz!

19.Nxd5 gxf6 20.dxe5 Kf8

Or 20…fxe5 21.Qxe5, with the double threat of 22.Qh8+ and 22.Nc7+.

21.Kh1

Coolly played; White removes a possible …Qb6+.

21…Rc8 22.Nxf6 Qa5 23.Qh5 Rc4 24.Qe8+

Black resigned.

KG 2.8

Gallagher

Balashov

Lenk 1991
1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nxd5 6.0-0 Be7 7.d4 0-0

More accurate is 7…Be6 8.Qe2 0-0 9.Nc3 Nc6!? 10.Nxd5 Bxd5 11.Bxd5 Qxd5
12.Bxf4 Bd6, with an equal position.

8.Bxd5! Qxd5 9.Bxf4 c5

A solid set-up is 9…c6 10.Nc3 Qd8 11.Qd2, and White is only fractionally
better.

10.Nc3 Qc4

After 10…Qf5 11.Qd2, followed by 12.Rae1, White also has good play.

11.Qe1 Bf6

11…Nc6 12.b3 Qe6 13.d5 Qxe1 14.Raxe1 Bf6 15.Ne4 is also good for White,
Mohr-Wöber, Austria 1995.

12.Bd6

The sharpest option.

12…Bxd4+ 13.Kh1 Rd8 14.Ne4 f5

Now White gets an overwhelming attack, but after 14…Nc6, 15.c3 would have
been more than annoying.

15.Qh4! Nc6

After 15…Re8, 16.Nfg5 h6 17.Nf6+! is winning.

16.Ne5!

This is how White exploits the position of the black queen on c4.

16…Bxe5

Black has to give up his queen. 16…Nxe5 is met by 17.Qxd8+, of course, while
after 16…Qe6 17.Nxc6 Rxd6 18.Ne7+ Kh8 19.Ng5 it is also curtains.

17.Nf6+ Bxf6 18.Qxc4+ Kh8 19.Bxc5 Ne5 20.Qe2 b6

Or 20…Be6 21.Rfd1 f4 22.Rxd8+ Rxd8 23.Be7 f3 24.Qxe5! Bxe5 25.Bxd8

Bxb2 26.Rb1, with a winning endgame, Gallagher-Campora, Biel 1990.
Gallagher says about this game: ‘Those were the days before databanks, when
you could spring an opening trap now and again!’

21.Be7

With only two pieces for the queen, Black is lost.

21…Bxe7 22.Qxe5 Bf6 23.Qc7 h6 24.Rae1 Ba6 25.Rxf5 Bxb2 26.h3 Rdc8
27.Qe7 Bc4 28.Qb4 Bd4 29.Re4 a5 30.Qd2 Bb2 31.Rh5 Rc6 32.Rxc4 Rxc4
33.Rxh6+ gxh6 34.Qxh6+ Kg8 35.Qe6+

Black resigned.

KG 2.9

Hahn

Class
Correspondence game 1983

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5

The so-called Modern Defence is one of the most active ways to play against the
King’s Gambit.

4.exd5 Nf6 5.Bb5+ c6 6.dxc6 Nxc6

6…bxc6 7.Bc4 Nd5 8.0-0 Bd6 9.Nc3 will not yield Black equality.

7.d4 Bd6 8.Qe2+

With this move White signals his ambitious intentions. 8.0-0 is less risky.

8…Be6

8…Qe7 leads directly to a bad endgame: 9.Qxe7+ Kxe7 10.0-0 Bg4 11.Bxc6
bxc6 12.Ne5.

9.Ng5 0-0 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.0-0

Very risky is 12.Qxe6+ Kh8 13.0-0 in view of 13…f3!, with great chances for
Black.

12…Qc7

After 12…Nd5 White seems to be able to hold on to some of his advantage with
13.Qxe6+ Kh8 14.Nc3. After 13.c4, 13…Ne3! 14.Bxe3 fxe3 15.Rxf8+ Qxf8
16.Qxe3 e5! is annoying.

13.Qxe6+

White falls for it after all. Safer is 13.Nd2, when Black continues with 13…e5!.

13…Kh8 14.Nd2 Rae8

15.Qc4?

Now White will fall victim to the superior black forces on the kingside.

The move called for was 15.Qh3, when Black can choose between 15…Re2 and
15…c5, in both cases with more than enough compensation for the pawn.

15…f3!

Less clear is 15…g5?! 16.Nf3 Ne4 17.b3! (an improvement on 17.Re1? g4

18.Ne5 Bxe5 19.Rxe4 Bd6 20.Rxe8 Rxe8 21.Qf1 f3! 22.gxf3 gxf3 23.Qxf3
Qg7+ 24.Qg2 Re1+, and White resigned, Eley-Bouwmeester, Vlissingen 1972)
17…g4 18.Ne5 Bxe5 19.dxe5 Qb6+ 20.Kh1 Nf2+ 21.Rxf2 Qxf2 22.Bb2, and
White has good chances for the exchange, according to Class.

16.Nxf3 Ng4 17.h3 Bh2+ 18.Kh1 Rxf3! 19.gxf3

Other moves are no better: 19.Rxf3 Re1+ 20.Rf1 Nf2, mate, or 19.hxg4 Rxf1+
20.Qxf1 Bg3 21.Bd2 (or 21.Be3 Qe7, or indeed 21.Bg5 h6) 21…Qd8.

19…Qg3 20.fxg4 Qxh3 21.Qe2 Bd6+

White resigned.

KG 3.4

Westerinen

Pakkanen

Helsinki 1992
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nf6

3…Qh4+ is simply met by 4.Kf1. The early loss of White’s castling rights is
amply compensated for by time he gains with Nf3.

4.Nc3

4.e5 is met by 4…d5.

4…c6 5.d4 Bb4 6.e5

After 6.Qf3 Black can react strongly with 6…d5! 7.exd5 0-0.

6…Ne4 7.Qh5 g6

Now Black can also play 7…d5 8.exd6 0-0, and after 9.Ne2 Nd7 the position is
roughly equal.

8.Qf3

8.Qh6 is met by 8…d5! again.

8…Qh4+ 9.Kf1

9.g3 fxg3 10.Bxf7+ Ke7 is good for Black.

9…Ng3+?

This exchange will stick in Black’s craw. Correct is 9…d5!, e.g. 10.exd6 Nxc3
11.bxc3 Bxd6, with good play for Black, Westerinen-Hector, Östersund 1992.

10.hxg3 Qxh1 11.Bxf4 Bxc3

Or 11…0-0 12.Ne4, followed by 13.Nf6; the black queen is hopelessly out of

reach!
12.Bxf7+! Kxf7 13.e6+! Kxe6

After 13…dxe6 Black wins with 14.Bd6+ Kg7 (14…Ke8 15.Qf6) 15.Be5+ Kg8
16.Qf6.

14.Be5! Qh5

14…Re8 is also met by 15.Qf6+ Kd5 16.Qd6+ Ke4 17.bxc3. Although a full
rook ahead, Black is hopelessly lost.

15.Qf6+ Kd5 16.Qd6+ Ke4

Or 16…Kc4 17.Qc5 mate.

17.bxc3 Rf8+ 18.Bf4 Rxf4+ 19.Qxf4+ Kd5 20.g4

Black resigned in view of 20…Qh4 21.Qe5+ Kc4 22.Qc5 mate.

KG 3.6

Wall

Ippolito

Hampstead 1998

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3

The old Mason Gambit. White simply allows the check on h4. It looks quite
scary, but since White dominates the centre, there is considerable resilience in
the white position.

3…Qh4+ 4.Ke2 d6

For the super-sharp 4…d5, see the correspondence game Welling-Klein, 1980.

5.Nf3 Bg4 6.d4

After an immediate 6.Nd5 Black has a good reply in 6…Qd8.

6…g5

Good for White is 6…Nf6 7.Bxf4 Nh5 8.Be3, e.g. 8…Ng3+ 9.Kd2 Qh5 (9…
Bxf3 runs into 10.hxg3! Qxh1 11.Qxf3, and Black is in deep trouble) 10.Rg1
Nxf1+ 11.Qxf1.

7.Nd5 Kd8

After 7…Na6 White develops with 8.Kd2 Qf2+ 9.Kc3!

8.Kd3 c6

Good for White is 8…Bxf3 9.Qxf3, as is 8…Qh5 9.Be2 c6 10.Nc3 (possibly

followed by h2-h4; if 10…Na6, White simply goes 11.a3).

9.Qd2! Bxf3

Black has no choice, as his queen is under attack.

10.Qa5+ b6

10…Ke8 11.Nc7+ Ke7 12.Nxa8 Qf2 13.Qd2 is good for White.

11.Nxb6 Bxe4+ 12.Kxe4 axb6 13.Qxa8

13…Qe1+?

Obvious but not good. Stronger is 13…d5+ 14.Kd3 Bd6 15.Qb7 Qe1 16.Qxb6+
Ke8, with an unclear position.

14.Kd3 Kc8 15.Bxf4! Qxa1

15…Qb4 16.Bd2 is equally hopeless.

16.Be2!

A classic double rook sacrifice!

16…Qxh1 17.Bg4+ f5 18.Bxf5+ Kc7 19.Qa7+ Kd8 20.Qxb8+ Ke7 21.Qxd6+

White would have had a quicker mate in 21.Bxd6+ Kf6 22.Qxf8!

21…Kf7 22.Qe6+ Kg7 23.Be5+

Black resigned.

KG 3.6

Welling

Klein

Correspondence game 1980

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3 Qh4+ 4.Ke2 d5 5.Nxd5 Bg4+ 6.Nf3 Nc6!?

In positions like these, material is less important than piece activity.

7.Nxc7+

White has to keep going. Bad is 7.d4? 0-0-0 8.c3 f5! 9.Qd3 (or 9.Qe1 Qxe1+
10.Kxe1 fxe4 11.Ng5 Rxd5 12.Nf7 Nh6 13.Nxh8 Rf5, with winning play for
Black) 9…Nf6 10.Nxf6 gxf6 11.Bxf4 Ne5! 12.Qe3 (12.Bxe5 fxe5 was White’s
best chance) 12…Nc4 13.Kd3 fxe4+ 14.Kxc4 Be6+ 15.Kb5 Qh5+ 16.Ka4 Qe8+
17.Bb5 c6 18.c4 cxb5+, and White resigned, Piass-Neimanis, correspondence
game 1986.

7…Kd8 8.Nxa8 Ne5

Black could also try 8…Nd4+ 9.Kd3 Qf6, but this is very unclear.

9.Qe1

In the game Menvielle-Tatai, Las Palmas 1972, 9.h3 was met by 9…Bxf3+
10.gxf3 Qg3 11.d4, and now Black’s best bet would have been to go for the
perpetual with 11…Qxf3+ 12.Ke1 Qg3+.

Another possibility is 9…Bh5, and after 10.d4 Nxf3 11.gxf3 Bxf3+ 12.Kxf3
Qh5+ 13.Kg2 Qxd1 14.Bd3 Qh5 15.Bxf4 the position is very unclear.

9…Nxf3 10.Qxh4+ Nxh4+ 11.Ke1 f3

Other possibilities are 11…Nf6 and 11…g5, in both cases with unclear play.

12.Kf2

Or 12.g3 Nf6!, or 12.h3!? Nxg2+ 13.Kf2, with very complicated play.

12…Nf6 13.d3

In the game Rozit-Neistadt, Moscow 1953, White played 13.Kg3? and was
punished with 13…Bd6+, the point being 14.Kxh4 Bf4 and 15…g5, mate.

13…Bc5+ 14.Kg3 fxg2

Black could have gone for perpetual check with 14…Bd6+ 15.Kf2 Bc5+, as
White cannot play 15.Kxh4? in view of 15…h6, with a mating attack. After the
text the positions remains unclear.

15.Bxg2 Nxg2 16.Kxg2 Kd7 17.Rf1 Rxa8 18.e5 Nh5 19.d4!

19.Rxf7+?! Ke6 20.Rxb7 is met strongly by 20…Rf8.

19…Bb6

The correct reply, since 19…Bxd4? 20.h3 Be6 21.Rd1 Bd5+ 22.Kf1 Ng3+
23.Ke1 Nf5 24.c3 will cost Black a bishop.

20.Bg5 Be6 21.c3 Rg8 22.Kf2

Draw.

KG 4.7

Foune

Mathieu

Correspondence game 1985

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5

With the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit Black tries to thwart White’s plans from the
very start. Not White but Black sacrifices a pawn!
3.exd5 e4 4.d3 Nf6

4…Qxd5 5.Qe2 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Bd2 Bxc3 8.Bxc3 is good for White.

5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2 Bf5

Rapid development is the order of the day: 7…Bf2+? 8.Kd1 Qxd5+ 9.Nfd2! f5
10.Nc3 Qd4 11.Nxe4 fxe4 12.c3 Qe3 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Bc4 Qxf4 15.Qd5, and
wins. The sacrifice variation 7…0-0? 8.Qxe4 Re8 9.Ne5 f6 10.Bd3 g6 11.Qc4!
also favours White.
8.Nc3

Tempting but bad is 8.g4?, since Black replies 8…0-0! 9.gxf5 Re8 10.Bg2 Nf2
11.Ne5 Nxh1 12.Bxh1 Nd7 13.Nc3 f6, with advantage, Spielmann-Tarrasch,
Mährisch-Ostrau 1923.

8…Qe7 9.Be3 Bxe3

This does not solve Black’s problems. 9…Bb4 10.Bd4 0-0 11.0-0-0 is also good
for White, but 9…Nxc3 10.Bxc5 Nxe2 11.Bxe7 Nxf4 12.Ba3 Nxd5 13.0-0-0
Be6 may be playable. The position is unclear.

10.Qxe3 Nxc3 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.bxc3 Be4

12…Bxc2 is met by 13.Kd2 Ba4 (after 13…Bg6, 14.Re1+ Kd6 15.Nd4 is

virtually winning) 14.Re1+ Kd6 15.Ng5 Kxd5 (or 15…Be8 16.c4 of 16.Re5, and
White has chances against the black king) 16.Re4 Be8 17.Rd4+ Kc6 18.Be2, and
White is better, Bronstein-Vaisman, Sandomierz 1976.

13.Ng5!
13…Bxd5

A difficult moment for Black. 13…Bxc2 14.Kd2 Bg6 15.Re1+ Kf8 16.Bb5 c6
17.f5!? also gives White good chances, e.g. 17…Bxf5 18.Rhf1 g6 19.g4 h6
20.gxf5 hxg5 21.fxg6.

14.0-0-0 Bxa2

After 14…Be6, 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Bc4 is good for White, while after 14…c6
White can choose between 15.c4 Be6 16.Re1 and 15.Bd3 g6 16.Rhe1+, in both
cases with the better prospects.

15.c4 b5 16.cxb5

16.Bd3!? is not so bad either: 16…g6 (16…bxc4 17.Rhe1+ Kf6 18.Nxh7+)

17.Rhe1+ Kf6 18.Be4 c6 19.cxb5, with advantage, Vashegyi-Szyszka,
correspondence game 1982.

16…a6?!

Maybe 16…h6 17.Ne4 Rd8 would have had given Black better chances of
survival.

17.Bd3

According to Foune, 17.Kb2!? was also strong.

17…axb5?

17…g6 was more tenacious, but after 18.Rhe1+ Kf6 19.Ne4+ Kg7 20.f5 Black’s
position remains a cause for serious concern.

18.Rhe1+ Be6

Or 18…Kf8 19.Nxh7+ Rxh7 20.Bxh7 g6 21.f5 Kg7 22.fxg6 fxg6 23.Re7+.

19.f5 Kf6

Or 19…Ra1+ 20.Kd2 Rxd1+ 21.Kxd1 Kf6 22.fxe6 Kxg5 23.exf7 Nd7 24.Re8
Nf8 25.Bxb5, with a simple win.

20.fxe6 Kxg5 21.exf7 Rf8

Or 21…Ra1+ 22.Kb2 Rxd1 23.Re8, or 21…Nc6 22.Bxb5, winning.

22.Re8 Rxf7 23.Kb2

The pin on Nb8 is going to be Black’s downfall.

23…c6 24.Bxh7 Rfa7 25.Rdd8 g6 26.Bg8 Rb7 27.g3 Kf6 28.h4 c5 29.Bd5

Black resigned.

KG 5.1

Cordier

Schwartzmann

Val Thorens 1991

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nf6

This move is not very common, nor is it to be recommended; White is, in fact,
going for a Latvian Gambit straightaway.

3.Nf3

3.fxe5 Nxe4 4.Nf3 d5 leads to the game continuation.

3…d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3 Nc5 6.d4 Ne4

6…Ne6 can be met strongly by 7.c4.

7.Bd3 Be7

The moves 7…c5 and 7…Bg4 have also been tried.

8.0-0 0-0 9.Nc3

Also good is 9.c4 c6 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Be6 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Qe1, with a
slight advantage for White.

9…Nxc3 10.bxc3 c5?!

The black player outrated his opponent by 440 points. Is it possibly that he
thought that White wouldn’t dare to sacrifice on h7 anyway? He would have
been wiser to play 10…f6.
11.Bxh7+! Kxh7 12.Ng5+ Bxg5 13.Qh5+ Bh6

After 13…Kg8 14.Bxg5 Qb6 15.Bf6 the white attack strikes home.

14.Rf6! Kg8?

This loses hopelessly. Stronger is 14…Nd7 15.Rxh6+ gxh6 16.Bxh6 (with

16.Qxh6+ Kg8 17.Bg5 f6 18.Qg6+ White can keep perpetual check) 16…Rh8!,
and there is no clear win.

White can continue with 17.Rf1 Qe8 (17…Nxe5? is bad: 18.dxe5 Be6 19.Rf3,
winning) 18.Rxf7+ Qxf7 19.Qxf7+ Kxh6, and now it is a draw by perpetual
check after both 20.Qe6+ Kg7 21.Qe7+ Kg6 and 20.e6 Rh7 21.Qf4+ Kg6 22.h4
Rg7 23.Qg5+ Kh7 24.Qh5+ Kg8 25.Qxd5 Nb6 26.e7+ Nxd5 27.e8Q+ Kh7
28.Qh5+. But with 20.g4!? Rf8 21.Qe7 White could go looking for more. The
black king is still exposed and Black’s superior forces are sidelined for the
moment.

15.Bxh6 gxf6 16.Rf1 Qd7

After 16…fxe5 17.Rf3 it is curtains.

17.Bg7!

Black resigned.

Maybe it is interesting to compare this game with Pinkas-Grzelak, Poland 1973:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bd3 Nxc3 7.dxc3 Be7 8.0-0
0-0 9.Bxh7+!? Kxh7 10.Ng5+ Bxg5 11.Qh5+ Bh6 12.Rf6 Nd7 13.Rxh6+ gxh6
14.Bxh6 Qe8? (14…Rh8! is unclear) 15.Bg5+ Kg8 16.Bf6 Nxf6 17.Qg5+ Kh8
18.exf6, and Black resigned.

KG 5.9
 Karker

Kalivoda

Correspondence game 1988

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.d3 a6

To prevent the exchange of Bc5. Besides, Black also brings b7-b5 into the
position.

Other possibilities in this starting-position of the King’s Gambit Declined are

6…0-0 and 6…Na5.

7.Ng5!?

An old idea of the American Weaver Adams. Other possibilities are 7.fxe5,
7.Rf1 and 7.f5. An example with this latter move: 7…Na5 8.a3!? Nxc4 9.dxc4
h6 10.Qe2 Bd7 11.Be3 Bxe3 12.Qxe3 b5 13.c5 0-0? (deadly dangerous; now
White can quickly launch an attack against the black king. According to
Hartston, the immediate 13…Qb8!? was better) 14.0-0-0 Qb8 15.g4! Nxg4
(allowing the advance g4-g5 wasn’t attractive either) 16.Qd2 Kh8 17.Rhg1 Nf6
18.Rxg7! Kxg7 19.Rg1+ Kh7 20.Ng5+! Kh8 21.Ne6! Nh7 22.Qxh6 Rg8 23.Rg7
Rxg7 24.Qxg7 mate, Hartston-Richardson, London 1983.

7…0-0 8.f5 Na5?!

More or less forcing White into the activity that now follows. But the knight is
not well positioned on a5, and 8…Nd4!? is probably a better move, as is 8…
b5!?, e.g. 9.Bxf7+ Rxf7 10.Nxf7 Kxf7 11.Bg5 Bb7 12.Nd5 Nb4 13.Nxf6 gxf6
14.Bh6 Qg8!, with advantage for Black, Messere-Timmerman, correspondence
game 1986/88.
9.Bxf7+!? Rxf7 10.Nxf7 Kxf7 11.g4

Now the black king is steamrollered by a white pawn phalanx. It may not be
overly clear, but White chances are certainly very good.

11…h6 12.h4 h5

In order to keep the position on the kingside at least slightly closed.

13.g5 Ng4 14.g6+ Kg8 15.Bg5 Qd7

After 15…Nf6 16.Nd5 Black might as well resign.

16.Rh2!

Not meant as a decoy move (16…Nxh2 17.Qxh5 wins for White), but to get rid
of the knight on g4.

16…Bb4 17.Rg2 Qc6 18.Rxg4 Bxc3+ 19.bxc3 hxg4

Or 19…Qxc3+ 20.Bd2, or indeed 19…Bxf5 20.Rg3! Bg4 21.Qd2, and White

should win, according to Karker.

20.Qxg4! Qxc3+ 21.Kf2 Bxf5

Or 21…Qxc2+ 22.Kg1 Qc5+ (22…Qxd3 23.Rd1!) 23.Kh1 Qd4 24.Rd1 Bxf5

25.Qxf5 Rf8 26.Qe6+ Kh8 27.Qg4, and it’s curtains (Karker).

22.exf5 Qd4+

Black opts for a prosaic finish. After 22…Qxa1 Karker has indicated this
beautiful variation: 23.Qh5 Qxa2 24.f6! (after 24.Qh7+? Kf8 25.Qh8+ Black has
25…Qg8) 24…Qxc2+ 25.Ke1 Qb1+ 26.Ke2 Qa2+ 27.Bd2 Kf8 28.Qh7 Qg8
29.Bh6! Qxh7 (or 29…Qa2+ 30.Ke3 Nc4+ 31.Kf3 e4+ 32.Kg3) 30.gxh7 Kf7
31.fxg7, and it’s finished. Very nice!

23.Qxd4 exd4 24.Re1 Nc6 25.Re6 Rf8 26.f6 gxf6 27.Bh6 Rc8 28.Rxf6 Ne5
29.Kg3 Re8 30.h5
Black resigned.

KG 5.10

Rubinstein

Hromadka

Mährisch-Ostrau 1923

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.d3 Bg4 7.h3

7.Na4 Bb6 8.Nxb6 axb6 9.0-0 is not bad for White either. 9…Nd4 10.fxe5 dxe5?
fails to 11.Bxf7+! Kxf7 12.Nxe5+.

7…Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nd4 9.Qg3!

After 9.Qd1 c6 Black has no problems.

9…Qe7

An important consideration, of course, is what kind of position arises after 9…

Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Qxg7. In the game Chigorin-Pillsbury, Hastings 1895,
there followed 11…Kd7 (after 11…Rf8, 12.fxe5 dxe5 13.Rf1 Be7 14.Bg5 is
winning) 12.fxe5 dxe5 13.Rf1 Be7 14.Qxf7 (even stronger is 14.Bg5, e.g. 14…
Nh5 15.Qxf7 Qe8 16.Qf5+ Kd8 17.Bxe7+, with a winning attack) 14…Kc8
15.Bg5 Rf8 16.Qe6+ Kb8 17.Bh6 Re8 18.Qxe5, and White had very good
chances.

10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Kd1!

White can afford to lose his castling rights. Thanks to the half-open f-file, he has
the best chances.

11…c6

Or 11…0-0-0 12.Rf1 Rhg8, and now White is better after both 13.Be3 and
13.Nd5.

12.a4

Preventing possible counterplay with b7-b5.

12…Rg8

12…0-0-0 can be met strongly by 13.Rf1!, as in the game. Less clear, however,
is 13.Qxg7?! Rhg8 14.Qxf7 Qxf7 15.Bxf7 Rxg2, and Black has counterplay.

13.Rf1 h6 14.Ne2 0-0-0

Preferable was 14…Nxe2 15.Kxe2 0-0-0. With the text-move White can
reinforce his position with tempo.

15.Nxd4 Bxd4 16.c3 Bb6 17.a5! Bc7 18.Be3 Kb8 19.Kc2 Ka8 20.Rf3

20.Qf2 Bb8 21.g4 was also strong.

20…Nd5
A nice trick; but it won’t solve Black’s problems.

21.Bg1!

21.exd5? cxd5 22.Bb3 e4 is good for Black, e.g. 23.Bf4 exf3 24.Bxc7 Qe2+.

21…Nf4 22.Qf2! Bb8 23.g3! Nxh3 24.Rxf7 Qd6

24…Nxf2 25.Rxe7 is not an option, of course, but with the text Black won’t save
his skin either. Now we see a very beautiful finale.
25.Qb6! Rd7

After 25…axb6 26.axb6+ Ba7 27.Rxa7+ Kb8 28.Rfxb7+ Kc8 29.Ba6 Black
might as well throw in the towel!

26.Bc5! Rxf7

26…Qc7 is simply met by 27.Qxc7 Rxc7 28.Rxc7 Bxc7 29.Bxg8.

27.Bxd6 Rf2+ 28.Qxf2 Nxf2 29.Bc5

Black resigned.
 A.C. van der Tak

Vienna Game

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3

VG 2.2

Hartston

Westerinen

Alicante 1975

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Be7 4.Nc3

This position can arise from both the Bishop’s Opening and the Vienna Game.

4…0-0 5.f4 exf4 6.Bxf4 c6 7.e5 d5?!

Interesting but dubious. After the game 7…Ne8 8.Nf3 d5 was recommended as
better. But then 9.exd6 Nxd6 10.Bb3 Nd7 11.d4 Nb6 12.0-0 Bg4 13.Qd3 will
still lead to a slight advantage for White, Kharlov-Kuzmin, Simferopol 1992.
8.exf6 Bb4

The point. This is how Black wins his piece back.

9.Bb3 d4 10.Ne2 dxc3 11.0-0!

Bad is 11.bxc3? Bg4, followed by …Re8.

11…cxb2 12.fxg7 Qb6+ 13.Kh1 Re8

14.Bxf7+!

The refutation of Black’s idea.

14…Kxf7 15.Be3+ Kg8 16.Bxb6 Bg4

Or 16…bxa1Q 17.Qxa1 axb6 is 18.Qf6 Be6 19.Nd4 Nd7 20.Qf4, and wins, e.g.
20…Bxa2 21.Nf5.

17.c3!

An important second point, with which 17…Bxe2 is refuted.

17…bxa1Q 18.Qxa1 Bxe2

After 18…Bd6 19.Bd4 Bxe2 20.Qb2 Bg4 21.Qb3+ Be6 the simple 22.Re1 is
winning.

19.Qb2!

Now Black is beyond saving.

19…Bxf1 20.Qb3+! Kxg7 21.Bd4+ Kg6 22.Qxb4

As far as material is concerned, Black isn’t all that badly off, but the position of
his king makes his situation hopeless.

22…c5 23.Qxc5 Nc6 24.Qd6+ Kh5 25.Bg7! Bxd3 26.h3 Bg6 27.Qf4

Black resigned.

VG 2.3

Posch
 Schroll

Vienna 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bb4

Since White doesn’t exert much pressure on the black position in the Vienna
Game, Black always has a wide choice. The sharp 3…Nxe4 requires accurate
knowledge of opening theory. 3…Nc6 or 3…Bc5 leads to somewhat calmer
positions. With the unusual text-move Black opts for a Ruy Lopez set-up (with
reversed colours) a tempo down.

4.f4?!

A demanding move. White can also go for the safer 4.Nf3 or for the interesting
idea of 4.Qf3!?.

4…Nxe4! 5.Qh5

Good for Black is 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5, and after 5.Nxe4 d5 Black has no
problems either.

5…0-0 6.fxe5

6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng5 h6 8.Bb3 hxg5 yields White nothing, e.g. 9.Nf3 exf4 10.Nxg5
Bf5.

6…d5! 7.Nxd5

7.Bd3 f5 is also good for Black.

7…Nc6
Black depends on his lead in development.
8.Nf3

8.a3 Nxe5! 9.Qxe5 Re8 gives Black a strong attack, while after 8.Ne2 Be6
9.Nef4 Nd4 he also has all kinds of chances, e.g. 10.Nxb4 Bxc4 11.c3 (11.d3 can
be met strongly by 11…Qe7!) 11…Ne6 12.d4 (12.Nxe6 fxe6 also looks good for
Black) 12…Nxd4! 13.cxd4 Qxd4 14.Qf3 Rad8, with good compensation for the
piece, according to an analysis by Patrick Wolff.

8…Be6 9.Ne3

After 9.Nxb4 Nxb4 White is faced with enormous problems.

9…g6 10.Qh6 Nxe5! 11.Nxe5 Bxd2+ 12.Ke2

12…Bxc1!

The earlier game Shabalov-Wolff, Boston 1994, saw 12…Qf6?! 13.Bxe6 Qf2+
14.Kd1 Rad8 15.Bd7, with an unclear position. The text yields Black a virtually
winning attack.

13.Raxc1 Qd2+ 14.Kf3 Bxc4 15.N5xc4 Qf2+ 16.Kxe4?!

This loses by force, but even after 16.Kg4 Black keeps all the chances:

16…Qe2+ 17.Kh3 (after 17.Kf4 f5 White is lost, and 17.Kh4 g5+ 18.Kh3 Nf2+
19.Kg3 Nxh1+ 20.Rxh1 f6 also favours Black) 17…Nf2+ 18.Kg3 (18.Kh4 is
met by the winning 18…Nxh1 19.Rxh1 b5 20.Ne5 Rae8) 18…Nxh1+! (18…
Ne4+?! 19.Kh3 Nf2+ 20.Kg3 Ne4+?! results in perpetual check, but Black is
entitled to more) 19.Rxh1 f5! (after 19…b5? White has the riposte 20.Nf5! gxf5
21.Qg5+, and perpetual check) 20.Qf4 Rae8, with advantage for Black – the
white knights have no base and the white king continues to be badly exposed.

16…Rad8!

Threatening 17…Rfe8+. White will have to give the queen, after which he has
nothing to complain as far as material is concerned, but his king is left helplessly
stranded in the centre. The conclusion is obvious.

17.Qxf8+ Kxf8 18.Rhf1 f5+ 19.Ke5 Qh4 20.g4 Qxh2+ 21.Kf6 Qh4+ 22.Ke5
b5! 23.Nxf5 gxf5 24.Rxf5+ Kg7 25.Ne3 Qg3+

White resigned.

VG 2.8

Gufeld
 Tarve

Tallinn 1969

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3!?

5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxe7+ is not going to get White anywhere.

5…Be7

The enormous complications arising from 5…Nc6 will be dealt with in the game
Alvarez-Hernandez.

6.Nf3 0-0

6…Nc6 is probably more accurate. White has little better than 7.Nxe5, when
Black plays 7…0-0! 8.0-0 g6 9.Qe2 Bf6, with good play.

7.h4 Nc6

The game Ritov-Malevinsky, Leningrad 1969, took the following interesting

turn: 7…g6 8.Qxe5 Bf6 9.Qf4 Re8+ 10.Kf1 Bg7 11.d4 Nc6 12.h5 b6 13.hxg6
hxg6 14.Qh2 Ba6+ 15.Kg1 Nf5 16.Bg5 Qc8 17.Bf6!, and Black resigned. The
threat of 18.Qh8+!, and mate, can only be parried with 17…Bxf6, but then
White plays 18.Qh7+, and Black is mated on f7!

8.Ng5 h6 9.Qg6!

It is true that Black can now swap the queens, but even without the queens the
white attack remains dangerous.

9…Bxg5 10.hxg5 Qxg5 11.Qxg5 hxg5 12.d3 Nf5

12…Nd4 is met by 13.Nd5!.

13.Bxg5 Ncd4

In order to at least exchange the strong Bb3.

14.Nd5
14…Nxb3?!

Black is not paying attention. According to an analysis by Keres, he should have

played 14…a5!, which would have allowed him to protect his kingside with Ra6,
e.g. 15.Nf6+? gxf6 16.Bxf6 Ng7 17.0-0-0 Ra6.

15.Nf6+! gxf6 16.Bxf6 Ng7 17.axb3 Re8

In order to be able to attack Bf6. After other moves White doubles rooks on the
h-file, followed by mate.

18.g4 Re6 19.g5 b6?

Now Black is left defenceless. Keres has indicated 19…Ra6!, and 19…Rxf6
20.gxf6 Ne8 21.Rh6 Nxf6 would have enabled Black to hold out for much
longer as well.

20.Ke2 e4

Now 20…Rxf6 21.gxf6 Ne8 no longer offered a way out in view of 22.Rag1+,
and mate.

21.d4 e3 22.f3 d5 23.Rh4 Ba6+ 24.c4

Black resigned.

VG 2.9

Alvarez

Hernandez
Correspondence game 1993

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3 Nc6!?

The so-called Frankenstein-Dracula Variation. You’d better brace yourselves for

some bloody scenes.

6.Nb5 g6

6…Nxb5? runs into 7.Qxf7, and mate, of course.

7.Qf3 f5 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8 b6

Black has invested a full rook, but he gets a handsome return. For a start, the
knight on a8 will be lost, and White will also be hampered by a chronic lack of
space, so that his king will often feel the pinch.

11.Nxb6 axb6 12.Qf3 Bb7 13.d3 Nd4 14.Qh3 e4

All this is well-known, and the moves 14…f4, 14…g5 and 14…h5 have also
been played several times.

15.Be3 exd3 16.0-0-0 Nxc2

16…Nxb3+ may well have been preferable here: 17.cxb3 Qe4 18.Nf3 Bg7
19.Bxb6+ Kc8 20.Kb1 Nb5 21.Qh4 Na3+! 22.Ka1 Nc2+, and perpetual check,
Bardosi-Somlai, Budapest 1987.

17.Bxb6+ Ke8
18.Qxd3

According to an analysis by the German player Winckelmann, White should play

18.Rxd3! here: 18…Nb4 (or 18…Na1 19.Bd4 Nxb3+ 20.axb3 Rg8 21.Re3 Ne4
22.f3 Qb4 23.Ne2 Qd2+ 24.Kb1 Bg7 25.fxe4 Bxd4 26.Nxd4 Qxd4 27.exf5+
Be4+ 28.Kc1 gxf5 29.Rhe1, and White wins) 19.Re3 Ne4 20.Bd4 h5 21.a3 (but
not 21.Bxh8? Bh6 22.Kb1 Nd2+ 23.Ka1 Nxb3+ 24.axb3 Nc2+ 25.Kb1, with an
unclear position) 21…Bh6 22.axb4 Nxf2 23.Qg3 Bxe3+ 24.Bxe3 Nd3+ 25.Kc2
Ne5 26.Nf3 Be4+ 27.Kd1, winning. 18.Nf3 also looks good for White, e.g. 18…
Be4 19.Qh4.

18…Bh6+ 19.Kb1 Be4 20.Bxc2 Bxd3 21.Bxd3 Bg7 22.Nf3

The 1974 correspondence game Yudelevich-Poselnikov saw 22.Bc5 Qe5 23.Ba3

Ne4 24.Nf3 Qa5 25.Rhe1 d5 26.Ng5 (according to Lepeshkin and
Konstantinopolsky, White is slightly better after 26.Nd2 Kf7 27.Nb3, but then
Winckelmann indicates 27…Nc3+!, and things are unclear) 26…Bf8 27.Re3 f4
28.Re2 Bxa3 29.bxa3 Ke7 30.Nxe4 Rb8+ 31.Ka1 Kf8 32.Rb1, with an equal
position.

More food for a couple of hours’ worth of analysis!

22…Bxb2!? 23.Rhe1

Could White have captured the bishop? After 23.Kxb2 Ne4 24.Bxe4 Qb4+ the
position is unclear.

23…Ne4
24.Kxb2

Now Black will keep perpetual check. Unclear is 24.Bxe4 fxe4 25.Kxb2 (or
25.Nd2 d5 26.Kxb2 Qb4+ 27.Kc2 Qxb6) 25…Qb4+ 26.Kc2 Qc4+ 27.Kd2 Qb4+
28.Ke2 exf3+ 29.Kxf3+ Kf8, according to Hernandez Molina.

24…Qb4+ 25.Ka1 Qc3+

Draw.

VG 3.5

Vorotnikov

Kapengut

Cheliabinsk 1975

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5

This counter-push, which is typical of the Open Games, is necessary to maintain

the balance in the centre.

4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Qf3

This queen sortie, which was played a few times by Spielmann in his early
career, has – like the continuation 5.Qe2 – fallen into disuse because of 5…Nc6.
The tense continuation in Maliutin-Bezgodov, Samara 2000, went 6.Bb5 f5
7.Nge2 g6 8.Nd4 Qh4+ 9.g3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 Qxd4 11.Qxd5, and now 11…Bc5!
(and if 12.Bxc6+, then 12…bxc6 13.Qxc6+ Kf7 14.Qxa8 Qf2+ 15.Kd1 f4!)
would have been fatal.

In the game Black does things differently.

5…f5 6.d3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 d4!

The correct move. After 7…Be7?! 8.d4! 0-0 9.Nh3 White is better.

8.Qg3 Nc6 9.Be2

In their book about the Vienna Game, Tseitlin and Glazkov suggest the move
9.Bb2!?.

9…Be6 10.Bf3

And here, 10.Nh3 and 10.Rb1 are alternatives.

10…Qd7 11.Ne2 0-0-0!

Simple and strong. 11…dxc3?! looks good, but then 12.Be3 Nb4 13.0-0 Nxc2
14.Bxb7 is good for White (Spielmann-Levenfish, Karlsbad 1911), as is 11…
Bc5?! 12.Bxc6! bxc6 13.Qf2!.

12.0-0 Bc5 13.c4 Bxc4! 14.Nf4

After 14.dxc4 d3+ 15.Kh1 dxe2 16.Bxe2 Bd4 17.Rb1 Bxe5 18.Qb3 b6 White is
a pawn down.

14…Nxe5!

An unexpected but strong piece sacrifice.

15.dxc4 d3+ 16.Kh1 dxc2 17.Bd5 Rhe8 18.Bb2

After the game the black player recommended 18.Be3 as stronger, but according
to an analysis by Tseitlin and Glazkov, Black will still get a decisive advantage
after 18…Bd6 19.Bxa7 Nxc4, e.g. 20.Bxc4 Bxf4 21.Qxf4 Re4 22.Qxf5 Qxf5
23.Rxf5 Rd1+ 24.Rf1 Rxa1 25.Rxa1 Rxc4 26.Be3 Re4 27.Bg1 Ra4 28.Be3 b5.
The correct move is 18.Qb3! c6 19.Qxc2, and if 19…Bd4 20.Rb1 cxd5 21.cxd5+
Kb8 22.Ne6 Rc8 23.Qb3, with equal chances.

18…Ng4 19.Rac1 c6 20.Bf3 Ne3 21.Rfe1 Nd1! 22.Rf1

Or 22.Rxc2 Nf2+, and White might as well resign.

22…Qd2 23.Qxg7 Re1

White resigned.

VG 3.6

Persitz

Hooper

Ilford 1954

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3 Bb4!?

An interesting possibility. Tempting but bad is 5…Qh4+? – a terrifying example

is the game Hon-Van der Sterren, London 1992: 6.g3 Nxg3 7.Nf3 Qh5 8.Nxd5
Nxh1 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8 Bg4 11.Bg2 Nc6 12.d4 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Qxf3
14.Bxf3 Nxd4 15.Bg5+ Kc8 16.0-0-0 Bc5 17.Bxh1 Kb8 18.b4 Ne6 19.bxc5
Nxg5 20.Rd7 Kxa8 21.Rxb7, and Black resigned!

6.dxe4 Qh4+ 7.Ke2 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Bg4+ 9.Nf3 dxe4 10.Qd4 Bh5

Bad is 10…exf3+? 11.gxf3, and White remains a piece up.

11.Ke3

11.Kd2!? is a good alternative: 11…Qg4 12.h3 Qf4+ 13.Ke1 Qg3+ 14.Qf2

Qxf2+ 15.Kxf2 exf3 16.gxf3, and thanks to his bishop pair, White has the
slightly better prospects.

11…Bxf3 12.Bb5+!?

This is how White keeps the fight going. One way to reach a quick draw is
12.gxf3 Qe1+ 13.Kf4 Qh4+ 14.Ke3 Qe1+.

12…c6 13.gxf3 cxb5

An alternative is 13…Qh6+!?, e.g. 14.Kxe4?! (safer is 14.Ke2 Qh3 15.Rd1

exf3+ 16.Kf2 Qxh2+ 17.Ke3 Qh6+, and perpetual check, according to Vukovic)
14…Qg6+ 15.Ke3 cxb5 16.Ba3 Nc6 17.Qd5 Qxc2 18.Rac1 Qf5 19.Rhe1 – thus
far the old game Chigorin-Caro, Vienna 1898, and now Vukovic’s
recommendation 19…b4!? 20.Bxb4 Nxb4 21.cxb4 0-0, with better play for
Black.

14.Ba3

14.Qxe4 Qxe4+ 15.Kxe4 Nd7 leads to approximate equality.

14…Qh6+ 15.f4

15.Kf2 is met by 15…Qh4+ again, possibly with perpetual check.

And 15.Kxe4?! is risky in view of 15…Qg6+ 16.Ke3 Nc6, followed by 17…

Rd8.

15…Qh3+ 16.Kxe4 Nc6 17.Qd3 Qg2+ 18.Ke3 g5!?

With 18…Qh3+ 19.Ke4 Qg2+ Black could have gone for perpetual check, but
he wants more!

19.Rhf1 Qxh2 20.Qf5 Rg8 21.fxg5 Nxe5 22.Rad1 Qg3+

The move 22…Rg6!, with the threat of 23…Nc4+, would have yielded Black
good chances. After the immediate 22…Nc4+ the position contains a perpetual:
23.Kf3 Nxa3 24.Rfe1+ Kf8 25.Qc5+ Kg7 26.Qd4+.

23.Ke4 Rxg5?

Was Black thinking he was winning here? With 23…Qg2+! 24.Kf4 (24.Kxe5?
Rxg5) 24…Qh2+ 25.Ke4 Qg2+ he could still have forced a draw through
perpetual check.

24.Qe6+!

If so, he was in for a rude awakening!

24…fxe6 25.Rf8

Mate!

VG 3.7

Sax

Ciocaltea

Vrnjacka Banja 1974

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3 Nxc3 6.bxc3 d4

Also playable is 6…c5 7.Nf3 Be7.

7.Nf3 c5
After 7…dxc3 8.Be3 Nc6 9.Be2, followed by 0-0 and Qe1, White develops a
strong initiative on the kingside.

8.Be2 Nc6 9.0-0 Be7 10.Qe1 0-0 11.Qg3

This set-up has yielded White many a win, and in the present game, too, White is
victorious. Yet objectively speaking, the black position is probably not all that
bad.

11…Kh8

After 11…f6 12.Bh6 Rf7 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.Ng5 Rf8 15.Ne4 White has the better
play, Noskov-Stoliar, Leningrad 1966.

12.Ng5 Bxg5

Good for White is 12…f6 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.c4 Ne7 15.Bg4, Tseitlin-Simonov,
Moscow 1972.

13.Bxg5 Qe8 14.Bh5

In the game Alföldy-Scholz, correspondence game 1969/70, play went 14.Rae1

Be6? 15.c4 Nb4 16.Bf3 Nxa2 17.Be4, and White had a winning attack. But 14…
dxc3, followed by Nd4, is a better way to conduct the black defence – as in the
present game, in other words.

14…dxc3 15.Rae1 Nd4 16.Bf6

This move may be slightly premature. An alternative is 16.Qh4!, with the threat
of 17.Be7, according to Tseitlin and Glazkov.
16…Rg8?

According to the Hungarian Haag, the white action stalls after 16…Ne6! 17.Bh4
Qd7. 17…Nd4 18.Bf6 Ne6 leads to move repetition.

17.e6 Bxe6

According to Haag, Black should have gone 17…gxf6 18.exf7 Qxf7 19.Bxf7
Rxg3 20.hxg3 Nxc2, but then 21.Re8+ Kg7 22.Bb3 wins a piece in view of the
threat 23.Rg8+ Kh6 24.Rxf6 Kh5 25.Bf7 mate. Instead of 20…Nxc2 Black
should play 20…Bf5, but his position is far from pleasant.

18.Bxd4 cxd4 19.Bxf7 Qxf7 20.Rxf7 Bxf7 21.Qf4 Bxa2 22.Qxd4

Black resigned.

VG 3.13

Lazard

Crepeaux

Strasbourg 1925

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Be2?

This is really bad! 6.Bb5!, on the other hand, yields White good play, e.g. 6…
Bc5 7.d4 Bb4 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 10.0-0.
6…Bc5! 7.d4

This is refuted, but 7.Rf1 Bg4 is also very bad for White.
7…Nxd4!

The point of 6…Bc5!. Black wins by force. The rest needs no comment.

8.Nxd4 Qh4+ 9.g3 Nxg3 10.Nf3 Bf2+! 11.Kxf2 Ne4++ 12.Ke3 Qf2+ 13.Kd3
Bf5 14.Qg1 Ng5+

White resigned.

VG 4.13

Barle

Portisch

Portoroz/Ljubljana 1975

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4

4.Nf3 leads to a variation of the King’s Gambit, as may be seen in the game
Shulman-Marciano, Ubeda 1997.

4…Qh4+ 5.Ke2

The old Steinitz Variation.

5…d6
5…d5 is sharper but unclear after 6.exd5 Bg4+ 7.Nf3 0-0-0 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Qe1
Qh5 10.cxb7+ Kb8 11.Kd2 Bxf3 12.gxf3 Bxd4 13.Bd3.

6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Bxf4 0-0-0 8.Ke3

Steinitz used to say that the king is a strong piece and thought nothing of taking
his monarch out for a stroll. But it is simply impossible that e3 is a good place
for the king. Incidentally, 8.Qd2 Bxf3+ 9.Kxf3 f5!? should also be good for
Black.

8…Qh5 9.Be2 g5!

With this pawn sacrifice Black opens the g-file. Later in the game we will see
how useful this is for Black.

10.Nxg5 Nf6 11.h3 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 Qg6

Now the threats of 13…Nh5 and 13…Re8 are in store for White.

13.d5

Larsen has suggested 13.b4!? as better here, but this is highly implausible!

13…Ne5 14.Nf3
14…Bh6!

The white bishop on f4 guards the dark squares, and swapping this bishop yields
Black all kinds of chances.

15.Bxh6 Qxh6+ 16.Kf2 Rhg8 17.Rhg1

17.Nxe5 dxe5 18.Qe3? fails to 18…Rxg2+.

17…Kb8 18.Qd2

Now 18.Nxe5 dxe5 19.Qe3 is met strongly by 19…Qh4+.

18…Qg6 19.Qf4 Nh5! 20.Nxe5

After 20.Qf5 Qg3+ 21.Kf1 Nf4, too, White is in trouble.

20…dxe5 21.Qxe5 Rde8 22.Qd4 Ng3 23.Rae1

After 23.Rge1, 23…Nxe4+! 24.Rxe4 Qxg2+ wins.

23…Nf5! 24.Qd3?

The only move was 24.Qd2, and it’s true that this gives Black an advantage after
24…Qb6+ 25.Ke2 Rg3! 26.b3 Nd4+ 27.Kd1 Nf3 28.gxf3 Rxg1, but at least
White can still fight.

24…Qb6+! 25.Ke2 Rg3 26.Qc4 Qe3+ 27.Kd1

Or 27.Kf1 Rf3+ 28.gxf3 Qxf3 mate!

27…Qxg1

White resigned. After 28.Rxg1 Ne3+ Black stays a rook up.

VG 4.15
 Shulman

Marciano

Ubeda 1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.h4

Another method to launch the attack is 5.d4, the so-called Pierce Gambit. The
main line goes 5…g4 6.Bc4 gxf3, and now 7.0-0 allows the surprising pseudo-
sacrifice 7…Nxd4. After 8.Qxd4? Qg5 the double threat of 9…Bc5 and 9…
Qxg2, mate, cannot be parried.

5…g4 6.Ng5 h6 7.Nxf7

The so-called Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit.

7…Kxf7 8.Bc4+ d5 9.Bxd5+

9.Nxd5 Kg7 is generally regarded as good for Black.

9…Kg7 10.d4 Nf6

Or 10…Bb4 11.Bxf4 Nf6 12.Bxc6, transposing to the game continuation. After

10…f3 11.gxf3 Nf6 12.Bf4! White also has compensation for the sacrificed
piece, e.g. 12…Ne7 13.Be5 Ng6 14.f4!.

11.Bxf4 Bb4

Or 11…Nxd5 12.exd5 Ne7 13.Be5+ Kg8 14.0-0 Bg7 15.Qd3 Bxe5 16.dxe5,
with excellent compensation for the piece, according to an old game Steinitz-
Barry, Montreal 1893!

12.Bxc6

Another possibility is 12.0-0: 12…Bxc3 13.bxc3 Nxd5 14.exd5 Qxd5 15.Qd2

Be6 16.Rae1 Rae8 17.Re5, with promising play, according to Glazkov.

12…bxc6 13.0-0 Rf8

13…Ba6 is met by 14.Be5! Bxf1 15.Qxg4+, with a winning attack, e.g. 15…
Kh7 16.Qf5+ Kg7 17.Rxf1 Rf8 18.h5.

14.Qd2 Ng8

No more tempting is 14…Nxe4 15.Bxh6+ Kh7 16.Qd3, with an attack

(Shulman).

15.Be5+ Kh7 16.Rxf8 Qxf8

Even after 16…Bxf8 17.Rf1 the attack continues.

17.Rf1 Qe7 18.Qf4 Be6

After 18…Bxc3 19.bxc3 Be6 Shulman and Kapengut indicate that 20.d5! wins,
but I think this is jumping to conclusions in view of 20…cxd5 21.exd5 Qc5+
(21…Bxd5? 22.Qf5 mate) 22.Bd4 Qxd5 23.Qxc7+ Bd7. Correct is 20.c4, e.g.
20…Re8 21.h5!, and now there is little redress against the advance 22.d5.
19.Nd5! Bd2

After 19…cxd5 20.exd5 Bf7 (20…Bxd5? runs into 21.Qf5, and mate, again)
21.Qxf7+ Qxf7 22.Rxf7+ Kg6 23.Rxc7 White, with four pawns for the piece,
has a winning position, while 19…Rf8 20.Nxe7 Rxf4 21.Rxf4 Bxe7 22.h5,
according to Shulman and Kapengut, is also very good for White.

20.Qxd2 cxd5 21.Qf4!? c6 22.exd5 cxd5 23.c4 Qd7

Or 23…dxc4 24.Qe4+, and mate, or 23…Qb7 24.Qf2 (threatening 25.Qc2+)

24…Ne7 25.Qf6, and Black might as well resign.

24.h5 Ne7

24…Rc8 is simply met by 25.b3.

25.Qf6 Rg8 26.Qf7+!

Black resigned.
 A.C. van der Tak

King’s Pawn Openings

Remaining openings with 1.e4 e5

KP 1.3

Vescovi

Sokolov

Malmö 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Bb5

It is not easy to think of a constructive move outside of the usual quintet 2.f4,
2.Nf3, 2.Nc3, 2.Bc4 and 2.d4. In the 19th century, Simon Alapin experimented
with 2.Ne2, but this move obstructs White’s own development too much.

The reason for calling the text Portuguese is obvious for two reasons. It is the
little brother of the Spanish (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5) and a number of Portuguese
masters have intensively studied its theory.
2…c6

White wants to meet 2…Nf6 with 3.d4 c6 4.dxe5!?, although Black has very
little to fear after 4…Nxe4.

3.Ba4 Nf6

3…d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 leaves White with a minor headache: pawn g2 is hanging,
and 5.Nf3? Qe4+ loses material on a4. This means that 4.Nc3 is better, when
after 4…Nf6 5.exd5 b5 6.Bb3 b4 he can choose between 7.Nce2 and 7.Na4
(Vescovi-Ekström, Katrineholm 1995).

4.Qe2

Now 4.d4?! runs into 4…Nxe4!, followed by 5…Qa5+, so White would be

better off covering the pawn. This is usually done with 4.Nc3.

4…Bc5 5.Nf3

This ‘standard’ move allows Black to make a dangerous central advance. After
5.c3 0-0 6.Nf3 d5 7.d3 dxe4 8.dxe4 the chances are equal.

5…d5!? 6.exd5

White has little choice, as 6.d3? Qa5+ 7.Nc3 d4 will cost a piece.

6…0-0! 7.Nxe5?

White sets the fox to watch the geese by opening the e-file. 7.dxc6 Nxc6 (even
sharper is 7…e4 8.cxb7 Bxb7 9.Ne5, or 8.Ne5 at once) 8.Bxc6 bxc6, and now
the correct move seems to be 9.d3, when the position has all the hallmarks of a
Göring Gambit with reversed colours.

7…Re8 8.c3

Already it is difficult to indicate a playable alternative. After 8.dxc6 Black can

play both 8…Bxf2+ 9.Kf1 bxc6 10.Qxf2 Rxe5 and 8…Nxc6 9.Bxc6 Bxf2+!.
8…Bxf2+! 9.Kf1

The damage has already been done. 9.Kxf2 Rxe5 loses material (10.Qxe5 Ng4+;
10.Qd1 Bg4; 10.Qd3 Ng4+!), while 9.Kd1 Bg4 (or even 9…Qxd5 10.Qxf2
Qxe5) 10.Nxg4 Rxe2 11.Nxf6+ Qxf6 12.Kxe2 is not attractive either.

9…Bg4

Straight from the shoulder! After 9…Qxd5 10.Bb3 Qxe5 11.Qxe5 Rxe5 12.Kxf2
the damage to White’s position is limited.

10.Qxf2 Rxe5 11.Kg1

11.Bc2 Be2+ 12.Qxe2 Rxe2 13.Kxe2 Qxd5 won’t solve White’s problems either.

11…Qe7

And White resigned. 12.h3 Re1+! 13.Kh2 Qe5+ loses hearth and home.

KP 2.4

Firnhaber

Zuckmann

Correspondence game 1975

1.e4 e5 2.d4
The Centre Gambit used to be pretty popular in the 19th century, when accepting
a gambit was still regarded as a matter of honour.

2…exd4 3.c3

The Nordic or Danish Gambit; the nomenclature is not consistent here.

3…dxc3

Black can take back in the centre at once with the advance d7-d5, of course, but
there is nothing wrong at all with taking the pawn. White, for his part, offers
another pawn.

4.Bc4 d5

Black pours oil on troubled waters, but 4…cxb2 is also playable: 5.Bxb2 Nf6
(after 5…d6 6.f4 or 6.Qb3 White has compensation for the sacrificed pawns)
6.e5 d5! (always the key move for a successful defence) 7.exf6 dxc4 8.Qxd8+
Kxd8 9.fxg7 Bb4+ 10.Nc3 Rg8, with a roughly equal position.

5.Bxd5 cxb2 6.Bxb2 Nf6 7.Nc3

7.Bxf7+ will not win the queen for White, as 7…Kxf7 8.Qxd8 is followed by
8…Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2. Because of the dissimilar pawn majorities this
position is quite hard to assess.

7…Be7 8.Qb3 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 c6

Bad is 9…0-0? In view of 10.Qg3!, with threats against g7 and c7.

10.Nxe7 Qxe7 11.Bxg7

After any other move Black will castle with an extra pawn in the bag.

11…Rg8 12.Bb2 Qxe4+ 13.Ne2

13…Qe7?!

The plan to develop the light-squared bishop is to the detriment of the activity of
the black queen. Stronger is 13…Na6!, a suggestion by Emms: 14.0-0-0 Nc5
15.Qa3 Bf5! 16.Qxc5 Qb1+ 17.Kd2 Qxb2+ 18.Ke1 Be6, with advantage for
Black, or 14.Ba3 b5, followed by …Be6.

14.0-0 Be6 15.Qa4 Rg4

Or 15…Na6 16.Ba3 Qg5 17.Ng3 0-0-0 18.Rab1, and White has an attack.

16.f4

16.Qd1, threatening 17.Nd4, leaves the kingside intact.

16…Bd5 17.Ng3 Qc5+?!

Here, 17…Qe3+ suggests itself, as 18.Kh1 will then fail to 18…Rxg3 19.hxg3
Qd2, with a double attack on g2 and b2. If White were to play 18.Rf2 Nd7
19.Bd4, Black had prepared 19…Rxf4.

18.Kh1 Nd7 19.Rae1+ Kd8

19…Kf8? 20.Ba3 costs Black his queen, while 19…Be6 is met by 20.Qd1, with
the double threat of 21.Qg4 and 21.f5.

20.Qd1 Rg8 21.Bd4 Qd6 22.Rf2 Qg6 23.Be5

Black is still a pawn up, but he is definitely feeling the heat.

23…Qg4

Returning the pawn…

24.Qb1 b6 25.Qxh7 Kc8 26.Ne4 Nf8?!

According to the white player, 26…Bxe4 27.Qxe4 would still have given Black
a playable endgame. It would hardly be a bundle of laughs, but in the rest of the
game after this Black hasn’t the slightest hope.
27.Qf5+! Qxf5 28.Nd6+ Kd8 29.Nxf5 Nd7 30.Bd6 Rh8

Or 30…Re8 31.Be7+ Kc7 32.Rfe2, and Black remains as badly caught as ever.

31.Rfe2 c5 32.Ne7 Bc4

32…Bb7 is also met by 33.Rd2.

33.Rd2 Bb5 34.f5! a5 35.Nd5

With 36.Nc7 as the main threat. Black is lost.

35…Kc8 36.Nc7 Bc6 37.Nxa8 Bxa8 38.Re7

Black resigned.

KP 2.11

Xie Jun

Flear

Hastings 1996

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6 4.Qe3

An interesting idea is 4.Qa4, the so-called Malmö Variation; but 4…Bc5 5.Nf3
Nf6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 d6 8.Nc3 Bd7 is probably simply good for Black.

4…Nf6 5.Nc3
White can also transpose moves and play 5.Bd2 first to remove the pin on b4. In
this case, 5…Be7 6.Nc3 d5 is an effective reply, as was borne out by the game
Judit Polgar-Timman, Hoogeveen 1999. After 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Qg3 Nxc3 9.Bxc3
Bf6 White has no opening advantage.

5…Bb4 6.Bd2 0-0 7.0-0-0 Re8 8.Qg3

The rediscovery of this move, which had already been played by Tarrasch in the
19th century, led to a (temporary) return to the Centre Gambit at grandmaster
level halfway the 1990s.
8…Rxe4

This pseudo-sacrifice, first played by Simon Alapin in 1906, had always been
regarded as the refutation of the white set-up. After 8…Nxe4 9.Nxe4 Rxe4
10.Bf4 Qf6 11.Nh3!, incidentally, White has compensation for the sacrificed
pawn.

9.a3

After 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 Black wins back the exchange with advantage, but this
discovery by Alexander Shabalov has given White’s play a new lease of life.

9…Rg4

It is hard to say what the strongest move is here. The game Judit Polgar-Hort,
Prague 1995, saw 9…Bxc3 10.Bxc3 d5 11.f3 Re6 12.Ne2, and White had good
play for the pawn. After 9…Bd6 10.f4 Re8 11.Nf3 White also has compensation
for the pawn, just as after 9…Ba5 10.Bg5.

10.Qe3 Bf8

Black’s position is not easy. After 10…Ba5 11.h3 Bb6 12.Qe1 Rg6 13.Nge2, too,
White keeps compensation.

11.h3 Rg6

After 11…Rd4 12.Nf3 Nd5 (or 12…Rd6 13.Bc4) 13.Nxd5 Rxd5 14.Bd3 White
has good attacking play, according to Marciano.

12.Bd3

A good alternative would have been 12.g4, followed by f4.

12…Rxg2
13.Nge2

It is clear that Black is going to lose the rook, the only question being how White
is going to go about catching it. After 13.Qf3 Black can block the g-file with
13…Rg6 or mobilize an extra piece for the defence with 13…Rxg1 14.Rhxg1
Ne5.

13…d6 14.Nf4 Rg5 15.Ne6

Winning the exchange, as expected.

15…Bxe6 16.Qxg5 g6?!

A weakening of the black castled position! The tournament bulletin indicates

16…Nd7 17.Qg3 Nde5 18.Be2 Nc4 as better, and the white bishops are less
dangerous than in the game.

Marciano suggests 16…Ne5, in which case Black also has two pawns for the
exchange.

17.Qh4 Nd5?!

According to the tournament bulletin, 17…Nh5 18.Bg5 Bh6! 19.f4 Bxg5

20.fxg5 Ne7 was a better idea.

18.Bg5 f6

And Black’s castled position is weakened further. After 18…Be7, however,

White would have played 19.Ne4, with an attack.

19.Nxd5 fxg5 20.Qe4 Ne5 21.Bc4 Bg7

The tournament bulletin suggests 21…c6 as better here, and it is true that after
22.Ne3 Bxc4 23.Nxc4 Nxc4 24.Qxc4+ d5 things are not overly clear.

22.Ne3 Bxc4 23.Nxc4 Kh8 24.Nxe5 Bxe5 25.h4 Qf8

A better defensive plan seems to be 25…c6. In this case 26.hxg5 Qxg5+ 27.Kb1
Rf8 is quite playable, and after 26.h5 Black can activate the queen with 26…
Qb6.

26.Kb1! Re8

Black’s job is anything but simple. After 26…gxh4 27.Rxh4 both b7 and g6 are
hanging, while 26…Qxf2 27.Qxb7 is also unpleasant.

27.hxg5 Qg7?

A blunder to round off the proceedings. Now it is really finished.

28.f4

Black resigned.

KP 2.12

Freiherr von Feilitzsch

Keres

Correspondence game 1932

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6 4.Qe3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 0-0 7.0-0-0 Re8
8.Bc4 d6

According to present-day theory, 8…Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Nxe4 10.Qf4 Re7 11.Bxf7+

Rxf7 12.Qxe4 Qg5+ 13.Rd2 d5 14.Qxd5 Qxd5 15.Rxd5 Rxf2 results in an equal
position.
9.f3?!

A better move is 9.Nf3.

9…Na5! 10.Bd3

10.Bb3 is not satisfactory either: 10…Nxb3+ 11.axb3 a5! 12.Qf2 Bd7 13.Nge2
a4 14.bxa4 Bxa4, with good play for Black, Romero-Karpov, Madrid 1992 – 60
years later with another ace behind the black pieces!

10…d5!

Black already has the initiative.

11.Qg5 h6 12.Qh4 d4! 13.Nce2 Bxd2+ 14.Rxd2 c5 15.c4

15.b3 also looks unpleasant.

15…Be6 16.b3

16.Rc2 is followed by 16…b5!, as in the game, while 16.e5 Nd7 costs White a
pawn.
16…b5! 17.Nf4

17.cxb5 would have run into 17…Bxb3!: 18.axb3 Nxb3+ 19.Kc2 Nxd2 20.Kxd2
Nxe4+, winning the queen! With the text White removes the strong black bishop
from the board, but it won’t do him much good; the black attack rolls on
inexorably.

17…bxc4 18.Nxe6 Rxe6 19.bxc4 Rb8 20.Ne2 Qb6 21.Kd1

The threat was 21…Nxc4! 22.Bxc4 Qb1, mate.

21…Qb4 22.Qg3 Nd7! 23.Rc2 Qa3 24.f4

Keres indicates the following winning variations: 24.Kd2 is met by 24…Nxc4+!

25.Bxc4 (or 25.Rxc4 Ne5) 25…Qe3+ 26.Kd1 d3, while after 24.Nc1 Black plays
the winning 24…Rb1 25.Ke2 Ne5 26.f4 Rg6.

24…Rg6 25.Qf3 Rxg2! 26.e5

Introducing Bh7+, winning the queen, into the position, but this never actually
happens. After 26.Qxg2 Black would have won with 26…Qxd3+: 27.Rd2 (or
27.Kc1 Qe3+ 28.Kd1 d3) 27…Qb1+ 28.Nc1 Nxc4 29.Re1 (29.Qf2 Nxd2
30.Qxd2 Qxe4) 29…Nxd2 30.Qxd2 Rb2 31.Qd3 Qxd3+ 32.Nxd3 Rxa2.

26…Rb1+ 27.Rc1

Or 27.Nc1 Rxc2 28.Bh7+ Kxh7 29.Qxa3 Rbxc1+, winning.

27…Nxc4! 28.Rxb1

28.Bh7+ Kxh7 29.Qe4+ won’t help either: 29…g6 30.Qxb1 Rxe2! 31.Kxe2
(31.Rxc4 Qf3!) 31…Qe3+ 32.Kf1 Nd2+ (Keres).

28…Ne3+ 29.Qxe3 dxe3 30.Bc4 Qa4+

White resigned.
KP 3.10

Van der Wiel

Van Baarle

Arnhem/Amsterdam 1983

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nd7 4.Bc4 c6 5.dxe5

In the theory books you can find the variation 5.0-0 Be7 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Ng5!
Nh6? 8.Ne6!. Black can deviate with 7…Bxg5, although 8.Qh5 g6 9.Qxg5 Qxg5
10.Bxg5 will then yield White some advantage. In the present game the white
player transposes moves in order to lure Black into the former variation.

5…dxe5 6.Ng5 Nh6 7.0-0 Be7?!

And Black falls for it! He should have gone 7…Qc7.

8.Ne6! fxe6 9.Bxh6 Nb6

The only move, as 9…gxh6? is met by 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.Bxe6 Qe8 12.Qxh6
mate.

10.Qh5+ Kf8?

After 10…g6 11.Qe2 Nxc4 12.Qxc4 or 11…Qd4 12.Nd2 White also has a good
position, but after the text the black king is in real trouble.

11.f4! Bc5+

Or 11…Qd4+ 12.Kh1 Qxc4 13.Nd2, with the double threat of 14.Nxc4 and
14.fxe5, and mate.

12.Kh1 Kg8 13.f5! gxh6

Or 13…Nxc4 14.f6!, with terrible threats.

14.fxe6

It is finished. Now we are treated to a nice finale.

14…Qe7 15.Rf7 Qg5 16.Rf8+

Black resigned.

KP 3.14

Adams

Torre
New Orleans 1920

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Nc3 Nf6
8.0-0

Another good idea for White is to aim for castling queenside with 8.Bg5 Be7
9.0-0-0.

8…Be7 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.exd5 0-0 11.Bg5 c6 12.c4 cxd5

The liquidation 12…Nxd5 13.cxd5 Bxg5 14.Nxg5 Qxg5 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Qxd6
is good for White.

13.cxd5 Re8 14.Rfe1 a5 15.Re2 Rc8?

Better is 15…h6!, because now the white combination as in the game won’t
work, because the black king has a flight square.

16.Rae1 Qd7 17.Bxf6 Bxf6

18.Qg4! Qb5

The queen is taboo in view of mate on the back rank.

19.Qc4! Qd7

The only move. After the capture on c4 it is mate on e8 again.

20.Qc7!

Another beautiful move. The theme is the same: the queen must not be taken in
any shape or form in view of mate on e8.

20…Qb5 21.a4!

21.Qxb7? at once fails to 21…Qxe2! 22.Rxe2 Rc1+, and now it is White who
gets mated!

21…Qxa4 22.Re4! Qb5

Or 22…Rxe4 23.Qxc8+, and mate.

23.Qxb7!

Black resigned.

It is generally thought that this game was never actually played, but was really
the result of a joint analysis by Adams and Torre, or even by Torre on his own.
But this needn’t take away from the pleasure of replaying it; the exceptionally
beautiful and elegant combination remains magnificent to behold!

KP 4.7

Heidenfeld
 Wolpert

Johannesburg 1955

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7

6.Bxf7+?

Tempting but not dangerous. Better is 6.dxe5 dxe5, and only now 7.Bxf7+, but
this isn’t dangerous for Black either: 7…Kxf7 8.Ng5+ Kg8 (8…Kg6!? is unclear
and may be playable) 9.Ne6 Qe8 10.Nxc7 Qg6 11.Nxa8 Qxg2 12.Rf1 Nc5
13.Be3 Bh3 14.Qe2 Qxf1+ 15.Qxf1 Bxf1 16.Kxf1 Kf7 17.Nc7 Rc8, with good
play for Black.

Probably also good for Black, although not overly clear, is 6.Ng5 0-0 7.Bxf7+
Rxf7 8.Ne6 Qe8 9.Nxc7 Qd8 10.Nxa8 b5!. The wisest option is 6.0-0 0-0, with
quiet and slightly better play for White.

6…Kxf7 7.Ng5+ Kg8

Here, too, 7…Kg6 may be possible, but the consequences are unclear.

8.Ne6 Qe8 9.Nxc7 Qg6 10.Nxa8 Qxg2 11.Rf1 exd4!

This is the difference with inserting the swap on move 6: now square e5 is
vacated for the black knight.

12.Qxd4

In the old game Rabinovich-Ilyin Zhenevsky, Moscow 1922, White played

12.Qe2. This was followed by 12…dxc3! 13.Qc4+ d5 14.Qxc8+ Kf7 15.Qxb7
(15.Qxh8 is met by 15…Qxe4+ 16.Kd1 Qf3+ 17.Ke1 cxb2 18.Bxb2 Bb4+ 19.c3
Bxc3+ 20.Bxc3 Qxc3+ 21.Ke2 Qc2+, and mate in a few moves) 15…Qxe4+
16.Be3 Rb8 17.Qxa7 cxb2 18.Kd2 Qb4+ 19.c3 Ne4+ 20.Ke2 Nxc3+ 21.Kf3
Qe4+ 22.Kg3 Ne2+ 23.Kh3 Qf3 mate.

12…Ne5 13.f4 Nfg4! 14.Qd5+

After 14.fxe5 Bh4+ 15.Kd1 Qxf1+ 16.Kd2 Be1+ it is finished, and after 14.Ne2
Bh4+ 15.Ng3 Nxh2 as well.

14…Nf7

Not 14…Kf8?, of course, in view of 15.fxe5, with check!

15.Qc4 Bh4+ 16.Kd1 Be6! 17.Qe2

17.Qxe6 is met by 17…Qxf1+ 18.Kd2 Be1+, and mate.

17…Nf2+ 18.Rxf2

No better is 18.Kd2 in view of 18…Bg4 19.Rxf2 Bxf2 20.Qb5, and now either
the calm 20…g6, parrying the mate on e8 (as recently indicated by Kosten), or
20…Bc5+ 21.Ne2 (21.Kd3 Qf3+) 21…Qxe4 22.Qd3 Qe7, threatening 23…Qd8,
as recommended decades ago (!) in Chess Archives edited by Max Euwe.

18…Bxf2 19.f5

Otherwise Black will play 19…Bg4; but now the knight can intervene.

19…Qg1+ 20.Kd2
20…Ne5 21.Nd1

Now the game is finished immediately; but after 21.fxe6 Be1+! 22.Qxe1 Nf3+
23.Ke2 Nxe1 24.Be3 Qxh2+ 25.Kxe1 Qh1+ 26.Ke2 Qxa1 Black also wins.

21…Be1+! 22.Qxe1 Qd4+! 23.Ke2 Bc4

Mate.

KP 8.6

Jablonski

Dubiel

Poland 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3

In the Ponziani Opening White aims for the ideal pawn centre e4-d4. The black
antidote is obvious: attack pawn e4!

3…Nf6 4.d4 exd4

The safest way for Black is undoubtedly 4…Nxe4, when after 5.d5 he can
choose between the speculative piece sacrifice 5…Bc5 6.dxc6 Bxf2+ 7.Ke2
bxc6 and the solid 5…Ne7 6.Nxe5 Ng6 7.Qd4 Qe7 8.Qxe4 Qxe5 9.Qxe5+ Nxe5.
5.e5 Ne4

By transposition a sub-variation of the Göring Gambit has arisen.

6.Qe2 f5 7.exf6

7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.Nxf5 0-0! 9.Qxe4 d5 10.exd6 Bxf2+! 11.Kxf2 Bxf5 gives Black a
winning attack.

7…d5 8.Nxd4

After 8.Nbd2 d3 (8…Qxf6 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10.Qxe4+ Qe6 only leads to equality)
9.Qxd3 Nxf6 Black has good play.

8…Nxd4 9.cxd4

An alternative is 9.fxg7!? Bxg7 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.cxd4. After 11…Qe7 12.Be2

Qb4+ 13.Nd2 Qxd4 the position is unclear.

9…Kf7!?

9…Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Bxd2+ 11.Nxd2 0-0 is also playable, but the text is sharper.

10.fxg7 Bb4+ 11.Kd1

11.Nd2? is met by 11…Re8, of course.

11…Re8 12.Be3 Kg8

13.Qc2

White is in trouble. Other moves are no better: 13.Qh5 Be6 14.Bd3 Qd7 15.h3
Bf5 16.Bc2 c5 17.Qf3 cxd4 18.Bxd4 Rac8 19.Bb3 Rc4 20.Be3 Nc5, with
promising play for Black, Levy-Boey, Siegen 1970.

Or 13.a3 Ba5 14.Kc1 c5 15.dxc5 d4 16.Qc4+ Be6 17.Qxd4 Nxc5 18.Bc4 Rc8,
with winning threats, Mondragon-Palciauskas, correspondence game 1973.

13…Bg4+ 14.f3 Ng5! 15.Qf2

15.Bd2 is refuted by 15…Nxf3!.

15…Qe7 16.Bd2?

This loses hopelessly. White’s only chance was 16.fxg4, but after 16…Qxe3
17.Qxe3 Rxe3 Black has a strong initiative, despite the queen swap.

16…Ne4! 17.Qe2 Bxd2 18.Nxd2 Qh4! 19.Nxe4 Rxe4 20.g3 Qf6 21.Qf2 Qxf3+

White resigned.

KP 8.11

Mechkarov

Khristov

Teteven 1956
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5

This counterpush can lead to very sharp complications.

4.Bb5 dxe4 5.Nxe5 Qg5 6.Qa4 Qxg2

For the alternative 6…Qxe5, see the game Hickl-Yusupov, Altenkirchen 1999.

7.Bxc6+

After 7.Rf1 Bh3, 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.Qxc6+ Kd8 10.Qxa8+ Ke7 leads to the game
continuation, but 8.Nxc6?! is good for Black: 8…bxc6 9.Bxc6+ Kd8 10.Qc4
Qxf1+ 11.Qxf1 Bxf1 12.Bxa8 Bd3.

7…bxc6 8.Qxc6+ Kd8

But not 8…Ke7? 9.Qxc7+ Ke6 10.Qxf7+ Kxe5 11.d4+, with a quick win,
Kadrev-Karaianov, Shumen 1956.

9.Rf1 Bh3 10.Qxa8+ Ke7 11.Kd1

On the run. According to an analysis by Zagorovsky, 11.Nc6+?! Kf6 12.Qd8+

Kg6 13.Ne5+ Kh5 14.Kd1 Qxf1+ 15.Kc2 Bd6 gives Black a large advantage.

11…Qxf1+ 12.Kc2 Bf5! 13.Na3!

The game Faas-Agapov, Leningrad 1983, saw 13.Qd5?! Nh6 14.b3 e3+ 15.d3
Qxf2+ 16.Nd2 Kf6! 17.Qd4 c5 18.Nd7++ Kg5 19.Nxc5 Bxc5 20.Qxg7+ Kh5
21.Qxh8 e2 22.Bb2 Be3 23.Qf6 e1N+ 24.Rxe1 Qxd2+, and White resigned.

13…e3+ 14.d3
14…Qe2+

The obvious 14…Qxf2+? 15.Kb3 e2 is good for White after 16.Nac4 e1Q
17.Bg5+, e.g. 17…Nf6 18.Rxe1 Qxe1 19.Nc6+ Kd7 20.N4e5+ Kd6 21.Qd8+
Bd7 22.Bxf6 Qd1+ 23.Kb4 Ke6+ 24.Be7, and Black might as well resign.

But according to an analysis by Smith and Ciamarra, 14…e2 leads to a draw:

15.Bg5+ f6! 16.Qd5 Be6 17.Nc6+ Kf7 18.Nd8+ Ke7 19.Nc6+.

15.Kb3 exf2 16.Nac4 Be6

16…f1Q? 17.Bg5+ f6 18.Rxf1 Qxf1 19.Nc6+ Kf7 20.N4e5+! fxe5 21.Nxe5+

Ke6 22.Qc6+ Bd6 23.Qc4+ Kxe5 24.d4+ gives White a winning position,
according to the Smith-Ciamarra analysis.

17.Bg5+ Nf6

Bad is 17…f6? 18.Nc6+ Kf7 19.Nd8+ Kg6 20.Nxe6 Qxe6 21.Be3 Ne7 22.Qe8+
Qf7 23.Qxf7+ Kxf7 24.Bxf2, with a winning position for White, Kviatkovsky-
Kadrev, Sofia 1956.

18.Nc6+ Kd7 19.Nb8+ Ke7 20.Nc6+ Kd7 21.Nd4

A last-ditch attempt to get more from the position than perpetual check.

21…f1Q 22.Rxf1 Qxf1 23.Qc6+ Kc8 24.Qa8+

White accepts the inevitable:

Draw.

KP 8.12

Hickl
 Yusupov

Altenkirchen 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 4.Bb5 dxe4 5.Nxe5 Qd5 6.Qa4 Qxe5!?

This move leads to great complications. If Black is afraid of them, he can play
6…Ne7.

7.Bxc6+ bxc6

Black will have press on, as after 7…Kd8 8.Qxe4 Qxe4+ 9.Bxe4 he hasn’t the
slightest bit of compensation for the pawn.

8.Qxc6+ Kd8 9.Qxa8 Nf6 10.Na3 Qg5

Another possibility is 10…Bc5. In the rapid game Yusupov-I.Sokolov, Garmisch

Partenkirchen 1994, there followed 11.b4?! (11.Nc4 is probably stronger) 11…
Bxf2+!? 12.Kxf2 e3+ 13.dxe3 Ne4+ 14.Ke1 Ke7 15.Bb2 Rd8 16.Rd1? (this is
refuted; better was 16.Nc4!? or 16.Qc6!?, in both cases with an unclear position)
16…Nxc3! 17.Kf2 Nxd1+ 18.Rxd1 Qxb2+ 19.Kg3 Qe5+ 20.Kf2 Rxd1 21.Qxc8
Rd2+ 22.Kf3 Qf6+ 23.Ke4 Qc6+, and White resigned. Phew!

11.g3?!

After 11.0-0 the white player was afraid of 11…Bd6, although it isn’t clear
whether Black has anything decisive after 12.d4 Qh5 13.g3.

11…Qh5 12.Nc4 Bc5

12…Qf3 13.0-0 Bc5 14.d4! doesn’t really work, but 12…Bd6 is a good
alternative. In Nikitin-Izvozchikov, Soviet Union 1968, Black got a strong attack
after 13.Nxd6 cxd6 14.d3 Re8 15.0-0 Ng4 16.h4 Ne5, but White could have
defended effectively with 17.Bf4 Nf3+ 18.Kg2 Nxh4+ 19.gxh4 Qf3+ 20.Kg1
Qxf4, and perpetual check. 17.Bg5+ f6 18.Qb8 also leads to perpetual check
after 18…Nf3+ 19.Kg2 fxg5 20.Qxd6+ Bd7 21.dxe4 Qg4 22.Rad1 Nxh4+
23.Kg1 Nf3+.

13.d4

13.Ne3 is met by 13…Kd7!?, with the threat of 14…Ba6; after 14.g4 Qh3 Black
has an attack, according to Yusupov.

13…exd3 14.0-0 Re8 15.h4!

15.Bf4? can be met strongly by 15…Nd5, while after 15.Be3? Ng4 16.Qg2 Bb7!
it is curtains, just as after 15.Bd2? Re2, followed by 16…Ng4.
15…Bxf2+!

Black has to force a draw; after other moves White plays 16.Bg5 or 16.Be3.

16.Rxf2 Re1+ 17.Rf1

After 17.Kg2?, 17…Qg4 18.Ne3 Qh3+ 19.Kf3 Qh1+ is too strong.

17…Rxf1+ 18.Kxf1 Qd1+ 19.Kg2 Qe2+ 20.Kg1 Qe1+ 21.Kg2 Qe2+

Draw.

KP 8.15

Kranzl

Blatny

Vienna 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 4.Qa4 Bd7

A good alternative is 4…f6, when 5.Bb5 Ne7 6.exd5 Qxd5 7.d4 Bg4 8.Bc4?!
(better is 8.c4; after 8…Qe4+ 9.Be3 Bxf3 White can play 10.Nd2 after all: 10…
Qg6 11.Nxf3!? Qxg2 12.Ke2, with unclear play, Mariotti-Hoen, radio game
1981) 8…Qe4+ 9.Be3 Bxf3 10.Nd2 Bd1!, with advantage for Black, is a nice
trick, Niedermayr-Krantz, correspondence game 1981.
5.exd5 Nd4 6.Qd1 Nxf3+ 7.Qxf3 Nf6

Black has speedy development for his pawn, yet his compensation is not totally
clear.

8.Bc4

An alternative is 8.h3 e4 9.Qe3!?, e.g. 9…Bd6 10.d4 0-0 11.c4 b5! 12.Nc3 bxc4
13.Bxc4, and according to Romanishin, White’s prospects are slightly better.

8…e4 9.Qe2 Bd6 10.d3 0-0 11.dxe4

11.0-0 is met by 11…b5! 12.Bb3 Bg4 13.Qe3 Re8 14.d4 Bc8! 15.h3 Bb7, with
good play for Black.

11…Nxe4

11…Bg4 is also worth trying: 12.Qc2 (or 12.f3 Nxe4!?, with interesting play)
12…Nxe4 13.Be3 Re8 14.0-0 Bf3!? 15.Be2 (15.gxf3? is met very strongly by
15…Qh4 16.f4 Ng5) 15…Bxe2 16.Qxe2 Qh4 17.h3 f5 18.Qf3 f4 19.Bc1 h5
20.Nd2 Ng5 21.Qd1 Re3!? 22.fxe3 Nxh3+ 23.gxh3 Qg3+ 24.Kh1 draw, Ploner-
Brainin, Austria 1988.
12.Be3?!

Now the white king will remain stuck in the centre. Better was 12.0-0! f5 13.f4.

12…f5 13.Nd2

It’s too late to castle: 13.0-0? f4 14.Bd4 Qh4, winning, e.g. 15.Qxe4 (or 15.f3
Ng3! 16.hxg3 (16.Qf2 Rf5, threatening 17…Qxh2+! and mate) 16…fxg3
17.Rd1 Rae8, with a winning attack) 15…Rae8 16.Qf3 (or 16.Qd3 f3 17.h3
Bxh3) 16…Bg4 17.g3 Qh5 18.Qg2 (18.Qd3 Be2) 18…f3 19.Qh1 Bh3, followed
by 20…Bg2. Thus Blatny’s analysis.

13…Nxd2 14.Qxd2

14.Kxd2 is met by 14…f4 15.Bd4 Qg5, followed by 16…Rae8.

14…f4 15.Bd4 Qe7+ 16.Kd1

After 16.Kf1, 16…f3 is extremely unpleasant.

16…Qg5 17.f3 Rae8 18.g4 Re3! 19.h4

If 19.Bxe3 fxe3 20.Qe2, then 20…Rxf3 21.Qxf3 Bxg4 wins.

19…Qe7 20.Bxe3 fxe3 21.Qg2

Certainly hopeless is 21.Qe2 Bxg4 22.fxg4 Rf2 23.Qd3 (or 23.Qe1 Qe4,
winning) 23…Rd2+.

21…b5 22.Bd3 Qe5

Black has excellent play for the sacrificed exchange. White is totally stuck.

23.Be4 b4! 24.Rc1

Or 24.Kc2 Ba4+ 25.Kd3 bxc3 26.bxc3 c5!, with winning threats.

24…Rf4! 25.Rc2 Ba4 26.Re1

Or 26.b3 Bb5 27.c4 Bd7, with threats like 28…Bg4 and Bd6-c5-d4.

26…bxc3!

Black is not interested in winning back the exchange.

27.b3 Qd4+ 28.Kc1 Bb5 29.Kb1 Rxe4! 30.fxe4 Qd2!

A very nice one!

31.Re2

Or 31.Rxd2 exd2 32.Rd1 Bd3+ 33.Ka1 c2, or possibly 31.Qxd2 exd2 32.Rd1
Bd3, followed by Kg8-f7-f6-e5-d4-e3-e2! White is totally paralysed! Thus
Blatny.

31…Qd1+ 32.Rc1 Bd3+ 33.Rc2 e2

White resigned.

KP 9.4

Glek

Romanishin

Biel 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Bc5?!

A courageous attempt to deviate from the usual 3…Nf6. But the text-move has a
downside.

4.Nxe5 Nxe5

4…Bxf2+ 5.Kxf2 Nxe5 6.d4 also favours Black.

5.d4 Bd6 6.dxe5 Bxe5 7.Bd3 Qh4

In the old game Verlinsky-Kubbel, Soviet Union 1922, Black played 7…d6, and
after 8.0-0 Qh4 9.f4 Bd4+ 10.Kh1 Bb6 11.Bb5+ c6 12.Be2 White was better.

8.Nd5 Ne7

Or 8…c6 9.Ne3 Ne7 10.g3 Qh3 11.f4 Bc7 12.Qf3, or 8…Nf6 9.Ne3 Nxe4
10.Qe2! Nc5 11.Nd5 Nxd3+ 12.cxd3 Kd8 13.Qxe5! Re8 14.Qxe8+ Kxe8
15.Nxc7+ Kd8 16.Nxa8, with advantage for White, according to Glek.

8…Qd8, as suggested by Tukmakov, is probably Black’s only acceptable move!

9.g3!

This game is a good illustration of how a premature attack, with too few pieces,
should be punished.

9…Qh3 10.Nxe7 Kxe7 11.f4 Qg2

After 11…Bd6, both 12.Be3 and 12.Qf3 are good for White.

12.Rf1 Bd4 13.Qh5! d5

13…d6 is met by 14.f5, and the black queen on g2 remains locked in.

14.Bd2!

Simple and strong! Unclear is 14.Qxd5? Rd8.

14…Rd8

After 14…dxe4, 15.Bc4 or 15.Bb4+ wins as well.

15.f5!

Not only closing the h3-c8 diagonal, preventing Black from fleeing with Qh3,
but also enabling White to go Bc4 after dxe4.

15…Bxb2 16.Rd1

Threatening both 17.Bb4+, followed by 18.Rd2, and 17.Rf2 Qg1+ 18.Ke2,

winning the queen.

16…dxe4

Or 16…Bd4 17.c3 Bc5 18.Bg5+ f6 19.Rd2, and Black has lost his queen.

17.Bc4

Black resigned.
KP 11.3

Spangenberg

Tkachiev

Villa Martelli 1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Nd4

Besides the symmetrical 4…Bb4 and the almost forgotten 4…Bc5, this move
from Rubinstein has been a popular way to counter the solid Spanish Four
Knights Game for something like 100 years.

5.Bc4

If White would be that way inclined, he could kill off the position completely
with the swap 5.Nxd4 exd4 6.e5 dxc3 7.exf6 Qxf6 8.dxc3 Qe5+ 9.Qe2 Qxe2+
10.Bxe2. There is little Black can do against this, as winning a pawn with 7…
cxd2+? 8.Bxd2 Qxf6 is definitely a bad idea in view of the variation 9.0-0 Be7
10.Bc3 Qg5 11.Re1!, with very promising play, e.g. 11…Qxb5 12.Qg4!, with the
threat of 13.Rxe7+, or 11…0-0 12.Re5 Qf6 13.Bd3, and the black king is
heading for choppy waters.

5…Bc5

There’s nothing wrong with 5…Nxf3+, but the text is more ambitious. With 5…
c6 6.Nxe5 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.Nf3 Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 0-0 Black gains time, as 10.0-0
can be met strongly by 10…Ng4!.
6.Nxe5 d5
A pawn sacrifice that has found few takers. At the start of the 20th century,
Alekhine, Rubinstein and Marshall garnered much experience with 6…Qe7.

7.Nxd5?

White is losing sight of the wood for the trees. 7.exd5 0-0 (7…Qe7 8.0-0! is
useless) 8.0-0 Re8 9.Nf3 Bg4 is annoying for White, as 10.Be2 fails to 10…
Rxe2! 11.Nxe2 Nxf3+ 12.gxf3 Bxf3, with a winning attack.

The best way to try and punish Black’s play, therefore, is 7.Bxd5! Nxd5 8.Nxd5
(8.exd5 Qg5) 8…0-0 (now 8…Qg5?! 9.Nxc7+ Kf8 10.Kf1! is too optimistic,
according to Kramnik) 9.c3. In Shirov-Kramnik, sixth match game, Cazorla
1998, Black just failed to equalise with 9…Re8 10.cxd4 (not falling for the trap
10.f4? Rxe5! 11.fxe5 Qh4+ 12.Kf1 Bg4) 10…Bxd4 11.0-0 Rxe5 12.d3 c6
13.Nf4.

7…Nxd5 8.Qh5?

This ruthless aggression only leads to further disaster. Of the many possibilities,
Kramnik assesses 8.c3! as the best one.

8…g6 9.Nxg6 Nxc2+ 10.Kf1

10.Kd1 Bg4+! 11.Qxg4 Nde3+ 12.fxe3 Ne3+ 13.Ke1 Nxg4 14.Nxh8 Qd4 is as
useless as 10.Ke2 Qf6.

10…Qf6 11.f3

The game is finished: both 11.Qe5+ Qxe5 12.Nxe5 Nxa1 and 11.Qe2 hxg6
12.exd5+ Kf8 are utterly hopeless.

11…hxg6 12.Qxd5 Rh5

White resigned.

KP 11.5
 Abonyi

Hromadka

Prague 1908

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Ba4 c6

A sharp pawn sacrifice.

6.0-0 Bc5

6…Qa5 has been played a few times in our time, as have 6…b5 and 6…d5.

7.Nxe5?

This is very greedy. Safe and correct is 7.d3.

7…d6 8.Nd3

After 8.Nf3 the pin 8…Bg4 is very annoying, e.g. 9.d3 Qd7 10.Be3 Bxf3
11.gxf3 Qh3 12.Bxd4 Bxd4 13.Ne2 Be5 14.Ng3 h5.

8…Bg4 9.Qe1 Nf3+!

A standard turn in this type of position.

10.gxf3 Bxf3

This terrific bishop guarantees Black a promising attack.

11.e5
After 11.Nxc5, 11…Qc8! leads to mate by force, while 11.Nf4 is met by 11…
Ng4 12.Nce2 Qh4 13.h3 g5, and wins. 12.d4 Qh4 13.h3 Bxd4 14.Nce2 Be5!
won’t help Black either.
11…0-0!

Beautiful and strong. After the premature 11…Qc8 White takes over the attack
with 12.exd6+ Kf8 13.Qe7+ Kg8 14.Ne5.

12.exd6

After 12.exf6 Black does not play 12…Qd7 in view of the resource 13.Ne5!, but
the subtle 12…Qc8, because now he can meet 13.Ne5 strongly with 13…Re8.

12…Ng4 13.Qe7

Or 13.Ne5 Nxh2!, with annihilation.

13…Bxd6

White resigned in view of 14.Qxd8 Bxh2 mate.

KP 11.5

Istratescu

Malaniuk

Erevan 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Ba4 c6 6.Nxe5 d6

The alternative is 6…d5. I refer the reader to the opening books.

7.Nf3 Bg4

Thanks to the pin, Black has sufficient counterplay for the sacrificed pawn.

8.d3 d5 9.Be3

According to an analysis by Emms, 9.0-0 gives Black good play after 9…dxe4
10.dxe4 Nxf3+ 11.gxf3 Qxd1 12.Rxd1 Bxf3 13.Rd3 Bg4.

9…Nxf3+ 10.gxf3 Bh5

11.e5?!

This is not such a good idea. After 11.exd5 Nxd5 Black is fine as well, but
returning the pawn with 11.Bd4!? dxe4 12.dxe4 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Qxd4 was a good
alternative when, according to Malaniuk, the position is roughly equal.

11…d4! 12.exf6 dxc3 13.fxg7

No better is 13.Qe2 cxb2 14.Rb1 Qd5 15.Bb3, as Black can afford to allow the
discovered check with 15…Qf5: 16.Bc5+ Kd7 17.Bxf8 Re8 18.Qxe8+ Kxe8
19.fxg7 Rxf8 20.gxf8Q+ Kxf8, with a winning position.

13…Bxg7 14.Rg1

14.b3 b5 loses a piece and 14.b4 Qd5 gives Black a large advantage.

14…cxb2 15.Rb1 Qa5+ 16.Kf1 Bf6!

Less successful is 16…Bc3? in view of 17.Bxc6+ bxc6 18.Rg5, and White wins
back the pawn with good play.

17.Qe1

After other moves Black plays 7…Qf5, but after the queen swap the black b-
pawn remains a nail in White’s coffin.

17…Qxe1+ 18.Rxe1 0-0-0 19.Bxa7 Bc3

White is left with an inferior position.

20.Rb1 Rd5 21.Bb3 Rf5 22.Be3 Bxf3 23.a4?!

This is not good, but after 23.d4 b5 Black is winning anyway. After some
preparation he continues with Bd5 and Ra8.

23…b5! 24.axb5 cxb5 25.d4 Kd7

White resigned. Black is going to play 26…Ra8 and 27…Ra1, made possible by
White’s 23rd move. A tragicomic final position!
KP 11.8

Gorelik

Chaschikhin

Correspondence game 1982

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nd4 5.Ba4 Bc5 6.Nxe5 0-0 7.Nd3

With this knight manoeuvre White thinks to take control of square d5. 7.Nf3,
incidentally, would be met strongly by 7…d5!.

7…Bb6 8.Nf4

The alternative is 8.e5, after which Black gets chances with 8…Ne8 9.Nd5 d6.

8…d5!

Regardless!

9.d3

Bad is 9.Nfxd5? Nxd5 10.Nxd5 Qh4! 11.0-0 Bg4 12.Qe1 Nf3+!, and Black
wins; the same turn as in Abonyi-Hromadka, 1908.

9…Bg4 10.f3 Nh5!

Another fine move, the point being that after 11.fxg4 Qh4+ 12.g3 Nxg3 13.Ng2
Qh3! 14.Nf4 Qh4 15.Ng2 Qh3! Black has a draw by repetition. With the game
continuation White grabs a second pawn, but this is extremely risky.

11.Nxh5 Bxh5 12.Nxd5 f5!

Practice has shown that other moves, 12…Qh4+?! and 12…c6?!, in the end fail
to yield Black sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawns. With the text,
Black steps up his activity.
13.Nxb6?

This is refuted, but White will not find it easy to find a way out. 13.Bf4?, for
example, is refuted by 13…fxe4 14.dxe4 Nxf3+! 15.gxf3 Rxf4!, and 13.h4? by
13…fxe4 14.dxe4 Nxf3+! 15.gxf3 Bxf3.

The implausible 13.0-0!? is White’s best chance: after 13…fxe4 14.dxe4 Nxf3++
15.Kh1 Qh4 16.Bf4! Rxf4 17.gxf3 Rxf3 18.Rxf3 Qxe4 19.Nf6+ gxf6 20.Bb3+
Kh8 21.Bd5 Bxf3+ 22.Qxf3 Qxf3+ 23.Bxf3 Black only has a measly extra pawn
in a position with opposite-coloured bishops, Nikonov-Pashinin, Barnaul 1986.

13…Qh4+

In Marks-Moohan, correspondence game 1988, 13…fxe4 also turned out to be

winning: 14.dxe4 Nxf3+ 15.gxf3 Qh4+ 16.Kd2 Rad8+ 17.Nd5 Rxf3 18.Qg1
Qf4+ 19.Ke1 Qxe4+ 20.Be3 Rxd5, and White resigned.

14.Kf1

14.g3 Qh3, followed by 15…Qg2 also gives Black a winning position.

14…fxe4!

Material is irrelevant. Now Black opens the f-file and wins.

15.Bb3+ Kh8 16.Qe1

After 16.Nxa8 Black sacrifices on f3: 16…Nxf3 17.gxf3 Qh3+, with a winning
attack.

16…Rxf3+!

The sacrifices are not hard to find, but it all looks very nice. Black wins in all
variations.

17.gxf3 Qh3+ 18.Kg1 Nxf3+ 19.Kf2 Nxe1 20.Rxe1 Rf8+ 21.Kg1 Qg4+
22.Kh1 Qf3+ 23.Kg1 Qf2+ 24.Kh1 Bf3

Mate.
KP 12.1

Budde

Muzdalo

Fredeburg 1994

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5

Tarrasch called this a Stümperzug, but books have been filled with arguments to
justify this direct assault on the black position.

4…d5 5.exd5 Nxd5?!

Although an absolute refutation of this move has not yet been found, you have to
have strong nerves to go for it.

6.Nxf7

The so-called Fried Liver Attack.

6…Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Nb4

After 8…Ne7 9.d4 White has promising attacking possibilities. The Bilguer
from 1916 – the opening encyclopedia of our forebears – devoted six closely
printed pages to it, but modern opening books deem it worth a footnote at best!
9.Qe4!?

9.a3!? is also possible: 9…Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nd4 (10…Nxa1!? 11.Nxd5 c6

12.Nc7++ Kd6 13.Nxa8 Qh4 is unclear, but may be playable) 11.Bxd5+, e.g.
11…Kd6 (11…Kd7!? is also worth looking at) 12.Qg3 Bf5? 13.d3 c6, and here
14.Re1 Qf6 15.Rxe5! is decisive.

This is why 12…c6 has been recommended instead of 12…Bf5, but then White
still has good chances after 13.Re1 Qe7 14.f4 cxd5 15.Rxe5 or 14.Bc4 Nf5
15.Ne4 Kc7 16.Qc3.

9…c6 10.d4

Equally unclear is 10.a3!? Na6 11.d4 Nc7. Black is a piece up, but life with a
king on e6 is anything but easy.

10…Qd6?

This is bad! 10…Kf7? 11.a3 Qa5? is also weak in view of 12.axb4! Qxa1
13.Nxd5 Qxc1+ 14.Ke2 Qxh1 15.Nc7+ Ke7 16.Qxe5+ Kd7 17.Nxa8 Qxg2
18.Qc7+, and Black resigned, Speelman-Fletcher, Junior championship Great
Britain 1969, an early game by a later top grandmaster! 10…Kd7! may be
Black’s best bet: 11.Nxd5 cxd5 12.Bxd5 Nxd5 13.Qxd5+ Kc7, with advantage
for Black, according to an old analysis by Leonhardt.

11.a3 Na6 12.Bf4 Kd7 13.Bxe5 Qe7

Now Black will be slaughtered; but 13…Qe6 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Bxd5 isn’t a bed
of roses either.

14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Qxd5+ Ke8 16.Bb5+ Bd7 17.Qxb7 Nc7 18.0-0! Bxb5
19.Rfe1 Ba6 20.Qc6+ Kd8 21.Bxc7+

Black resigned in view of 21…Qxc7 22.Re8 mate.

KP 12.1
 Kalvach

Drtina

Correspondence game 1986

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4

The Lolli Attack, named after Giambatista Lolli (1698-1769) who, together with
Del Rio and Ponziani, formed the so-called School of Modena.

6…Bb4+!?

An important check: Black takes away square c3 from the white knight. After
6…Be7? 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qf3+ Ke6 9.Nc3 Nb4 10.Qe4 c6 11.a3 Na6 12.Qxe5+
Kf7 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Bxd5+ or 6…exd4? 7.0-0! Be6 8.Re1 Qd7 9.Nxf7! White
gets excellent chances.

7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7!?

Other moves yield little, e.g. 8.Qh5 g6 9.Qf3 Bxg5 10.Bxd5 0-0.

8…Kxf7 9.Qf3+ Ke6 10.Qe4

An alternative is 10.0-0!?. After 10…Na5 11.Qg4+ Kf7 12.Qf3+ Ke6 13.Qg4+ it

is perpetual check, but White can also try 11.Bd3!?, although things are
extremely unclear after 11…Bf6. Also worth looking at is 10.a4!? (to prevent the
annoying push b7-b5), e.g. 10…b6 11.0-0 Bb7 12.Re1 Bf6 13.Ba2, with strong
pressure on the black position, according to an analysis by Bücker.

10…b5!?
After 10…Bf8?! 11.0-0 Ne7 12.f4 c6 13.fxe5 White has great play, Barden-
Adams, Hastings 1951/52.

11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.f4

Of this position the theory books used to say that White had more than enough
compensation for the piece and was better. But his advantage turns out to be
anything but clear…

A good alternative is 12.0-0!?, e.g. 12…g6 (12…Kf7!? 13.dxe5 is unclear)

13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.c4 Nb4 15.d5+ Bxd5 (15…Nxd5 16.Rd1!) 16.cxd5+ Qxd5
17.Qg4+ Kf7 18.Nc3 Qe6 19.Qe4, and White was slightly better, although the
game Daw-J.Kuiper, correspondence game 1997, resulted in a draw.

12…g6

Here, the American theoretician John Watson has suggested 12…Nf6.

13.fxe5

13.dxe5 is met by 13…Bc5, with advantage for Black. This is why 13.Bxc6
should be considered an improvement: 13…Bxc6 14.0-0 Rf8 15.c4 Nb4 16.d5
Nxd5 17.Qxe5+ Kf7 18.cxd5 Qxd5 19.Qxd5 Bxd5 20.Be3, and White retains
some advantage.

13…Rf8! 14.Qg4+

After 14.c4 Black has 14…Nxd4! (or 14…Ncb4 15.cxd5+ Qxd5 16.Qxd5+
Bxd5, with good counterplay) 15.Qxd4 Nf4 16.Qxd8 Nxg2+.

14…Rf5 15.Bd3
15…Nxd4!

This is how Black shatters the white position.

16.Rf1

After 16.cxd4 Nb4 17.Bxf5+ gxf5, followed by …Ba6 and/or …Bh4 White has
a winning position. 16.Bxf5+ gxf5 17.Qxd4 Qg8! 18.Qf2 f4 19.0-0 Rf8 20.Na3
Nxc3 21.Kh1 Bc5 22.Qc2 f3 is equally hopeless for White.

16…Ne3!

The beginning of the end.

17.Bxe3

Or 17.Qxd4 Rxf1+ 18.Bxf1 Nc2+, and White might as well resign.

17…Nf3+! 18.gxf3

Or 18.Ke2 Qxd3+! 19.Kxd3 Nxe5+.

18…Qxd3 19.Qd4 Bh4+ 20.Qxh4 Qxe3+

White resigned.

KP 12.3

Filipov

Chaschikhin
Correspondence game 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5

The Traxler Counter-Gambit, one of the most controversial variations in the

entire theory of chess openings.

5.Nxf7 Bxf2+! 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3!?

The king is taken into the open! Potentially fatal but possibly playable.

7…Qe7 8.c3 d5 9.Bxd5 Qc5+ 10.d4

10.Kxe4 is met by 10…Bf5+ 11.Kxf5 Qxd5 12.Nxh8 Ne7+ 13.Kg5 Qxg2+

14.Qg4 Qxh1 15.Qh5+ g6, and the outcome is unclear.

10…exd4+

10…Qxd5!? may be stronger.

11.Kxe4 Bf5+! 12.Kf4

Bad is 12.Kxf5? Qxd5+ 13.Kg4 0-0, with winning threats, e.g. 14.Qf3 Qe6+
15.Qf5 Ne5+!, and White loses his queen.

12…Qxd5 13.Nxh8 0-0-0 14.Kg3 Rxh8

15.cxd4

White can also try 15.h3!?, when Black plays 15…g5, with attacking chances.
Thus the black player.

15…Rf8 16.Nc3

Now 16.h3? is met by 16…Bxb1 17.Rxb1 Qd6+ 18.Kh4 Nxd4, with a mating
attack, according to the black player.

16…Qd6+ 17.Bf4 Qg6+ 18.Kf2 Be4! 19.Ke3

After 19.g3!? Bxh1 20.Qxh1 Qc2+ 21.Ke3 g5! 22.Be5 Nb4 (22…Ne7 is
unconvincing in view of 23.Rf1 (or 23.g4!?) 23…Nf5+ 24.Rxf5 Rxf5 25.Qd5)
23.Rd1 Qf2+ 24.Ke4 Qf5+ 25.Ke3 Qf2+ Black has perpetual check, but nothing
more.

19…Bxg2 20.Rg1 Nb4 21.Qe2 Nc2+ 22.Kd2 Nxd4 23.Qxg2?!

More stubborn is 23.Qd3. According to the black player, 23…Qf6 24.Rxg2

Qxf4+ 25.Qe3 Nf3+ 26.Ke2 Qc4+ 27.Kf2 Ne1+!? 28.Kxe1 (if 28.Kg3. then
28…g5! is strong) 28…Qf1+ 29.Kd2 Qxg2+ leaves Black with slightly better
prospects, but I regard the position as pretty unclear.

23…Qc2+ 24.Ke1

After 24.Ke3, 24…Nf5+ 25.Kf3 Nh4+ wins.

24…Re8+ 25.Kf1 Qd3+ 26.Ne2

After 26.Kf2 White is mated: 26…Re2+! 27.Nxe2 Qxe2+ 28.Kg3 Nf5+ 29.Kh3
Qh5.

26…Rxe2 27.Qg4+ Re6+ 28.Kg2?

This is hopeless. White’s only chance was 28.Kf2 h5 29.Rad1 Qc2+ 30.Rd2
Qxd2+ 31.Bxd2 hxg4, with a favourable endgame for Black, but one that still
has to be won.
28…h5 29.Qxe6+

29.Qxh5 is met by 29…Re2+, and wins.

29…Nxe6 30.Bc1 h4 31.a4 h3+ 32.Kf2 Nd4 33.Ra3 Qf5+

White resigned.

KP 12.3

Szafranski

Dudzik

Correspondence game 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3!?
Qe7

Black can also try 7…Qh4, but then 8.g3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Qd4+ 10.Kf3 d5 11.Rh4!
is unclear. Black’s only rescue after 11…e4 12.Kg2 0-0 13.Nc3! lies in the
incredible resource 13…dxc4! 14.Qh5 Ne7!, with hair-raising complications.
The correspondence game Martinovsly-Albano, 1990, ended peacefully after
15.Nxe4 Bf5! 16.Nfg5 h6 17.Nc3 Bg4 18.Nh3! Qf6 19.Qxg4 Qf1+ 20.Kh2 Rf2+
21.Nxf2 Qxf2+.

8.c3

After 8.Kxe4? d5+ 9.Bxd5 Qh4+ 10.g4 Bxg4 11.Bxc6+ Bd7+ 12.Ke3 Qd4+
13.Ke2 bxc6 Black has winning threats, but the blunt 8.Nxh8 certainly comes
into consideration: 8…Qg5+ 9.Kxe4 d5+ 10.Bxd5 Bf5+ 11.Kf3 Bg4+ 12.Kf2
Bxd1 13.Bxc6+ bxc6 14.Rxd1, with a very unclear position. According to
Christophe in NIC Yearbook 55, Black is lost.

8…Nd4 9.Kxe4

9.d3!, a recommendation by the German player Cramer, also looks good. How is
Black to continue?

9…Qh4+ 10.Ke3 Qf4+ 11.Kd3 d5 12.Bxd5 Bf5+ 13.Kc4 b5+ 14.Kc5 Qh4
15.Nxe5

Bad, of course, is 15.Bxa8? Qe7+, and mate.

15…0-0-0 16.c4

After 16.Nc6? Black wins with 16…Rxd5+ 17.Kxd5 Rd8+!: 18.Kc5 Ne6+
19.Kxb5 Bd3+, and mate.

16…Rxd5+

16…Qe7+ 17.Kxd4 c5+ 18.Kc3 Qxe5+ 19.d4 cxd4+ 20.Kb3 Rxd5 may be an
alternative.

17.cxd5
17…Rd8

17…Nc2, a suggestion by Nunn, looks like a better idea.

18.Nc3 Nc6

This move was discovered by the American Williams. Black seems to be

winning; he is threatening 19…Qb4+ 20.Kc6 Rd6, mate, while, for example,
19.d4 is met by 19…Qe7+ 20.Kc6 Qb4, and mate. But here it comes!

19.Qg4!
This improbable move, which must be the craziest one in the entire book, yields
White the win!

The ‘winning’ move 19.Qa4, which had been thought up before, is incorrect:
19…Qe7+ (but not 19…bxa4 20.Nxc6 Bd3 21.b3, and the white king is not
mated, which means that White, with his enormous material superiority, should
win) 20.Kxb5 Nxe5! (and not 20…Qxe5? 21.Qc4 Nd4+ 22.Ka4 Bd7+ 23.Ka5
Nc6+ 24.Ka6 Nb8+ 25.Kxa7 c6 26.Nb5 Bf5 27.d4 Rd7+ 28.Ka8!? Qe7 (thus the
dreamt-up game ‘Van de Loo-Hesseling, England 1983’), and now 29.d6, and
Black should be lost as there is, again, no way to mate the white king) 21.Qa6+
Kb8 22.Ka4 Rd6 23.Qa5 Rb6 24.Nb5 a6 25.Qc3 axb5+ 26.Kb3 Qd6 27.d3
Qxd5+ 28.Kc2 Qxg2+, with a quick win for Black, Kloskowski-Szafranski,
correspondence game 1995/96, a game that was most decidedly played!

19…Bxg4

Other moves are no stronger: 19…Qf2+ 20.d4 Bxg4 21.Nxc6 a6 22.Kb4 Rf8
23.Ka3 Qxg2 24.Be3 Rf3 25.Rag1 Qh3 26.Bd2 Rd3 27.Be1 a5 28.Nxa5 Rxd4
29.b4, or 19…Qe7+ 20.Kxb5 Bxg4 21.Nxc6 Bd7 22.Ka4 Bxc6+ 23.dxc6 Rd4+
24.Kb3 Qe6+ 25.Kc2 Qg6+ 26.Kd1 Qxg2 27.Re1 Qf3+ 28.Ne2 Rh4 29.b3, in
both cases with advantage for White, according to Szafranski’s analysis.

20.Nxc6 Bf3

Szafranski indicates that after 20…Bh5 21.d4 a6 22.a4 Rf8 23.axb5 Qf2
24.Rxa6 Re8 25.b6 Qf8+ 26.Kc4 cxb6 27.Re1 Rxe1 28.Ra8+ it is finished.

21.d3

Not, of course, 21.gxf3? Qc4 mate!

21…Bxg2 22.Nxd8 Bxh1 23.Nc6

The same as in a few of the lines given above: the white king is safe and White’s
material superiority should decide.

23…a6 24.Be3 Qxh2 25.Rf1 Kb7 26.Rf2 Qg3 27.Kd4 Bxd5 28.Na5+ Kb6
29.Nxd5+ Kxa5 30.Rc2 Qh4+ 31.Kc5 b4 32.b3 Qd8 33.a3 Qd6+ 34.Kd4
Black resigned.

KP 12.3

Winter

Schulz

Correspondence game 1977

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Kg1
Qh4 8.g3 Nxg3 9.Nxh8

Capturing the knight is wrong: 9.hxg3? Qxg3+ 10.Kf1 Rf8 11.Qh5 (or 11.Qe1
Qf3+ 12.Kg1 Qg4+ 13.Kh2 Qxc4 14.Ng5 h6 15.Nh3 d6, with very good chances
for Black) 11…d5! 12.Bxd5 Nd4? (12…Nb4! is winning, e.g. 13.Bc4 b5!
14.Bxb5 c6 15.Bc4 Nd5) 13.Qh2 Qg4 14.Qxe5+ Be6 15.Bxe6 Qf3+ 16.Kg1
Ne2+ 17.Kh2 Qf2+ 18.Kh3 Qf3+? (18…Rf7 should draw) 19.Kh4 Qf2+
20.Kh5? (20.Kg5! wins) 20…Rxf7 21.Bxf7++ Kxf7 22.Rh2? (22.Rh3 avoids
22…Qf3+) 22…Qf3+ 23.Kh4 g5+ 24.Qxg5 Rg8 25.Qh5+ Qxh5+ 26.Kxh5
Ng3+? (with 26…Nf4+! Black could have won: 27.Kh6 (or 27.Kh4 h5, and mate
on g4) 27…Rg6+ 28.Kxh7 Rg7+ 29.Kh6 Kg8, and mate!) 27.Kh6? Nf5+?
(Maarten de Zeeuw recently discovered that Tal remarkably enough misses
another mate in a few moves, now with 27…Rg6+ 28.Kxh7 Ne4) 28.Kxh7
Rg7+, draw, thus a telephone game between Tal (Black) and the readers of the
Komsomolskaya Pravda from 1968/69.

9…d5!?
9…Nxh1?! 10.Qf3 is good for White, but 9…Nd4 is quite playable: 10.hxg3
Qxg3+ 11.Kf1 Qf4+ 12.Kg2 Qg5+, and perpetual check.

10.Qf3

After 10.hxg3 Qxg3+ 11.Kf1 Bh3+ 12.Rxh3 Qxh3+ 13.Kg1 Qg3+ 14.Kh1 is
perpetual check again, as White is unlikely to survive 14.Kf1? 0-0-0. Otherwise,
10.Bxd5?! Bh3 gives Black a strong attack.

10…Qd4+ 11.Kg2

An old analysis by Estrin indicated 11.Qe3 Nxh1 12.Bb5 (after 12.Qxd4?! Nxd4
13.Bb3 Be6 14.Kxh1 0-0-0 White is in trouble, despite his extra piece) 12…
Qg4+ 13.Kxh1 Bf5 14.d3 Kf8 15.Bd2 Qd1+ 16.Be1 Kg8 17.Qd2 Qf3+ 18.Qg2
Qd1 19.Qd2 Qf3+, and a draw.

11…Nf5 12.Qh5+

Angelov-Sapundzhiev, correspondence game 1966, saw 12.c3 Qxc4 13.d3 Qh4

14.Rg1 (14.Qxd5 is met by 14…Ne3+! 15.Bxe3 Bh3+ 16.Kf3 Bg4+, and
perpetual check) 14…Be6 15.Kh1 e4 16.dxe4 dxe4 17.Qg4 Qxg4 18.Rxg4 0-0-
0, with good play for Black. Bad at any rate is 12.Qxd5? Nh4+ 13.Kf1 Bh3+
14.Ke2 Qg4+ 15.Kf2 Qf5+, and White resigned, Braskin-Simchen,
correspondence game 1989.

12…g6 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.Qxg6+ Ke7 15.Qh7+

After 15.Qg5+ Black also plays 15…Kd6.

15…Kd6 16.Be2 Nh4+

Black will have perpetual check; 16…Qe4+? is bad: 17.Kf2! Qxh1 18.Nc3 Ncd4
19.b3 c5 20.Bb2 1-0, Winter-Koronowski, correspondence game 1975.

17.Kf1 Bh3+ 18.Ke1 Ng2+ 19.Kd1 Ne3+

Draw.
KP 12.3

Kurkin

Estrin

Moscow 1966

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5
8.exd5 Nd4
9.h3

After 9.c3 Black wins with 9…Bg4 10.Qa4+ Nd7, while 9.d6 cxd6 10.c3 Bg4
11.Qa4+ Kf8! also gives Black winning play, e.g. 12.cxd4 exd4 13.Kxf2 Ne4+
14.Kg1 Qh4 15.h3 Qf2+ 16.Kh2 Qg3+ 17.Kg1 Bf3 18.Bf1 Ng5! 19.Qd7 Bxg2
20.Qf5+ Kg8! 21.Bxg2 Re8, and White resigned, Engelhardt-Eckmann, cr 1979.
9.Kf2!? may well be White’s best bet; after 9…Bg4 (9…Ng4+!?) 10.Qe1 Nxc2
11.Bb5+ c6 12.dxc6 0-0-0!? Black certainly has chances, but the situation is
quite unclear.

9…Bg3! 10.c3 Nf5!

When Mikhail Tal was shown this position he observed: ‘The highest time for
White to resign.’

11.Qa4+

Or 11.d4 Bd7 12.Bg5 (after 12.Qe2, 12…Bh2! is fatal) 12…0-0-0, and Black
wins.

11…Bd7 12.Bb5

12.Qb3 is simply met by 12…0-0-0 again.

12…Qc5 13.Bxd7+ Nxd7 14.Ke2

More stubborn is 14.d4 exd4 15.Qb4, but after 15…Qxd5 Black should also be
winning – he is threatening both 16…0-0-0 and 16…Qe4.

14…Qxd5 15.Rg1 e4! 16.d4

Or 16.Qc2 Nc5 and 17…0-0-0, winning.

16…exd3+ 17.Kd1 Bf2 18.Rf1 Qxg2 19.Rxf2 Qg1+! 20.Kd2 Qxf2+ 21.Kxd3
0-0-0 22.Qf4 Ne5++ 23.Ke4 Ng3+ 24.Kxe5 Qc5+ 25.Ke6 Qd5+

White resigned.
KP 12.4

Minte

Wanke

Correspondence game 1984

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+

This capture leads to less hectic positions than 5.Nxf7. But Black is still getting
attacking chances, along the f-file this time, with the queen manoeuvre Qd8-e8-
g6 or h5.

5…Ke7 6.Bd5

One advantage of the text is that White can sometimes capture the c6 knight and
then play d4.

6…Rf8 7.0-0 d6 8.h3

In order to prevent …Bg4, which would have come after 8.c3. 8.Bxc6 bxc6
9.Nf3 or 9.d3 has also been tried.

8…Qe8 9.c3 Qg6 10.d4 Bb6

11.f4!?

White goes to it with a vengeance. In Estrin-Nun, correspondence game 1975,

White played 11.Be3, and after 11…Nh5 12.Kh2 Nf4 13.Bxf4 Rxf4 14.Nf3 Qh5
15.Nfd2 Bg4! 16.f3 Bxh3! 17.gxh3 Rh4 the position was unclear.

11…exf4

Less good is 11…exd4 in view of 12.Kh2!, and now it is the black king that feels
the draught.

12.Bxf4 Nxd5

Other moves here are 12…h6 and 12…Nh5, in both cases with complicated play.

13.exd5 Rxf4 14.Rxf4 Qxg5 15.Re4+ Ne5 16.Kh1 Bf5 17.Re2

17.Re1 wasn’t great either in view of 17…Rf8 18.dxe5 Bxh3!, with an attack.

17…Rf8 18.dxe5 Bg4 19.exd6++ Kxd6 20.Nd2

The queen cannot get out of the pin (20.Qe1? Bxe2 21.Qxe2 Qc1+ or 20.Qd2?
Rf1+), but now White has the fork 21.Ne4.

20…Rf4 21.Qc1!

And suddenly White slips out of the pin, as 21…Bxe2? loses in view of
22.Ne4+.

21…Kd7 22.Ne4! Qh6 23.Ng5!

Besides 23…Bxe2, Black was also threatening 23…Bxh3. With the text, White
safeguards himself.

23…Qxg5 24.Re4 Bxh3!

The only move, but a good one. White cannot prevent perpetual check.

25.gxh3 Qh5 26.Qxf4 Qxh3+

Draw.

KP 12.4

Howell

David

Groningen 1995

1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bb3 Qe8

The alternative is 6…Rf8. One of the many examples: 7.d3 d6 8.Be3 Bxe3
9.fxe3 Ng4 10.Nf3 Nxe3 11.Qe2?! (stronger is 11.Qd2! Ng4 12.Qg5+ Ke8
13.Qxg7, and now 13…Rxf3 14.gxf3 Qh4+ 15.Kd2 Qf2+ 16.Kc1 unfortunately
yields nothing for Black) 11…Ng4 12.Nc3 Nd4 13.Nxd4 Rf2! 14.Nf5+ Bxf5
15.Qd1 Kf8 16.exf5 Rxg2 17.h4 Rg1+! 18.Rxg1 Qxh4+ 19.Kd2 Qh6+ 20.Ke1
Qh4+ draw, Zinnmann-Egorovsky, correspondence game 1971.

7.0-0 Rf8

Regardless. An alternative would be 7…d6, e.g. 8.d3 Bg4 9.Nf3 (or 9.Qe1 h6)
9…Nd4 10.Nbd2 Qh5 11.c3 Nxf3+ 12.Nxf3 Raf8, and White is in trouble; 13.h3
is met by 13…Bxh3!.

8.Nc3 d6 9.Nd5+ Kd8 10.c3 h6 11.d4

Unclear but probably not bad for Black is 11.Nxf6 Rxf6 12.d4 Bb6. The same
goes for 11.Nf3 Bg4 12.Ne3 Bxe3 13.fxe3 Nxe4 14.d3 Nc5.
11…exd4 12.Nxf6

White can also play 12.e5 at once, when Black continues 12…Nxd5 13.Bxd5
dxe5 14.Ne4 Bb6 15.cxd4 Nxd4 16.Be3 c6 17.Bc4 Qg6, with unclear play,
according to Howell.

12…Rxf6
13.e5!? Rf5

13…dxe5 runs into 14.Ne4, 13…Qxe5 14.Nf7+ Rxf7 15.Bxf7 also favours
White, and after 13…Rf8 Howell gives 14.exd6!? hxg5 15.Bxg5+ Rf6 (but not
15…Kd7? 16.Re1 Qg6 17.Qg4+, and it is curtains) 16.Bxf6+ gxf6 17.dxc7+
Kxc7 18.Rc1, and White is slightly better.

14.Nf3 Nxe5

14…dxe5 is met by 15.Bc2 Rf6 16.b4 Bb6 17.b5, with advantage for White.

15.Nxd4 Rf6 16.Be3 Ng4?!

Howell indicates 16…Qf8!? as better, but after 17.Nc2 Black continues to have
problems with his king in mid-board.

17.Re1 Nxe3 18.Rxe3 Qf8 19.Qe2 c6 20.Re1

Now White is clearly better.

20…Bd7 21.Be6 Bxd4 22.cxd4 Bxe6 23.Rxe6 Rxe6 24.Qxe6 Rc8 25.Re3
Kc7?

A serious error. After 25…d5 White would not have found it so easy to make
progress.

26.Rf3

Black resigned. After 26…Qe8 27.Rf7+ Kb8 (or 27…Kb6 28.Qb3+ Ka5
29.Qa3+) 28.Qxd6+ Ka8 29.Re7 White has a winning position, while after 26…
Re8 27.Rf7+ Kb6 28.Qb3+ Ka5 29.Qc3+ the mate on e1 is covered, so that
White wins the queen.

KP 12.5
 Grau Ribas

Weissleder

Correspondence game 1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5!?

The move of the American Ulvestad.

6.Bxb5

This capture has been regarded as less good since the introduction of Ulvestad’s
move in 1941, but the white player has his own take on it. The critical move is
6.Bf1.

6…Qxd5 7.Bxc6+ Qxc6 8.Qf3 e4 9.Qb3

White had expected to derail Black’s development with the attack on f7.

9…Bc5!

But Black calmly ignores the threat!

10.Qxf7+ Kd8 11.0-0 Rf8

Also playable is 11…h6. See Grau Ribas-De Groot, correspondence game 1997:
12.Qxg7 Rg8 13.Qxh6 Bb7 14.Kh1 e3 15.f3 e2 16.Re1 Ne4! (or 16…Ng4!, as in
the present game) 17.Nf7+? (White should have allowed the perpetual with
17.Qxc6) 17…Kc8! 18.Qxc6 Nf2+ 19.Kg1 Nh3++ 20.Kh1 Bxc6, and Black had
winning threats.

12.Qxg7 Rg8 13.Qh6

Even after the queen swap Black’s attack rolls on unchecked: 13.Nf7+ Ke8
14.Ne5 Rxg7 15.Nxc6 Bh3.

13…Bb7 14.Kh1 e3

Estrin at some stage indicated 14…Rg6 15.Qh4 Qd5 here, the point being
16.Nh3 e3 17.Nf4 Qxg2+!, with a quick win. But this idea doesn’t look so
convincing after 16.d4! exd3 17.f3 dxc2 18.Nc3, with advantage for White.

15.f3 e2 16.Re1
16…Ng4! 17.Qxc6

17.Nf7+? Kc8 18.Qh3 is met by 18…Qe6, and wins.

17…Nf2+

Here the players agreed on a draw. Black keeps perpetual check: 18.Kg1 Nh3++
19.Kh1 Nf2+.

KP 12.5

Kazhoks

Kahn

Correspondence game 1987

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1

This has long been regarded as White’s best reply. Now Nd4 is a shot in the
dark, while the b5 pawn remains a target.

6…h6 7.Nxf7

Obvious, but 7.Nf3, even 7.Ne6, are also played, Morozevich-Piket, London
1995.

7…Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Bxb5?!

Safer is 9.Be2!. A few examples: 9…Ne4 10.0-0 Bxf2+! (10…Nxf2? is bad in
view of 11.d4) 11.Rxf2+ Nxf2 12.Qf1! (after 12.Kxf2? Qd4+ 13.Kf1 Rf8 14.c3
Qh4 Black has a strong attack) 12…Rf8 13.Qxf2+ Kg8 14.Qe3 Qh4, with
unclear play, Howell-Volzhin, Calcutta 1996, and 9…h5!? 10.d4 (10.0-0 runs
into 10…Ng4 11.h3 Qh4, with an attack) 10…Qxd4 11.0-0 Qxd1 12.Rxd1 Bg4,
with counterplay for Black, Veinger-Rause, correspondence game 1997.

9…Ng4

9…Bxf2+? is tempting but not good: 10.Kxf2 Ne4+ 11.Ke1 Qh4+ 12.g3 Nxg3
13.Qf3+ Nf5+ 14.Kd1, and Black is simply a piece down.

10.0-0 Qh4 11.h3

White also has problems after 11.Qf3+ Ke8 12.Qg3 Qxg3 13.hxg3 Rf8.

11…Bxf2+ 12.Kh1
12…e4?

12…Ke8! unpins Bf2 and is probably strong: 13.Be2 h5 14.a4 (or 14.Nc3 Qg3
15.Bxg4 hxg4 16.Rxf2 gxh3, winning) 14…Qg3 15.Bxg4 Bxg4 16.Ra3 Bxd1
17.Rxg3 Bxg3 18.Rxd1 Rh6, and Black should win. Thus an analysis by the
German Baum.

13.Bc4+?

A pointless check. Now Black can remove the pin on Bf2 after all, after which
he has an easy win. The correct move is 13.Be2!, e.g. 13…h5 14.a4! Qg3
15.Bxg4 Bxg4 16.Ra3, and the black attack stagnates, according to Baum. The
rook manoeuvre saves him.

13…Kg6 14.Be2 h5 15.d4

Or 15.Bxg4 Bxg4, and the attack strikes home.

15…Qg3 16.Bxg4 Bxg4 17.Qd2 e3 18.Qd3+ Bf5

And if the queen goes, Black plays 18…Be4, so White resigned.

KP 12.5

Klementiev

Mikhalchishin

Correspondence game 1974

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4

A little transposition has led us into the Fritz Variation. Instead of the text-move
White can also play 8.cxd4 or 8.Nxf7.

8…Qh4 9.Bxb5+?!

Stronger is 9.Ng3. This was played in a famous correspondence game Estrin-

Berliner from 1965/66, which was recently declared the best correspondence
game of the 20th century. Black won, but the discussions are still going on.

9…c6

Also good is 9…Nxb5, e.g. 10.Qa4 Qh6 (10…Bd7!? loses the queen after
11.Nd6+ Nxd6 12.Qxh4, but after 12…Nf4 Black has good compensation,
according to Zaitsev) 11.Qxb5+ c6 12.Qe2 Nf4, with excellent play for Black
(Mikhalchishin).

10.Bd3

This is no beauty, but 10.cxd4? is not really possible in view of 10…cxb5, e.g.
11.Qc2 Nb4.

10…Nf4

10…Ba6!? and 10…Ne6!? are also good possibilities.

11.Bf1 Bg4! 12.Qa4

12…Be2! 13.Bxe2

White loses quickly after 13.cxd4 Nd3+ 14.Kxe2 Qxe4+ 15.Kd1 Nxf2 mate!

13…Nfxe2 14.cxd4

14.d3 is no better in view of Black’s reply 14…Nxc1 15.cxd4 Nxd3+.

14…Qxe4 15.f3 Qg6 16.Kf2

16.Kxe2 is met by 16…Qxg2+ 17.Kd3 (or 17.Ke3 exd4+ 18.Qxd4 Qxh1) 17…
Qxf3+ 18.Kc2 Qxh1, and c6 remains covered.

16…Nf4

There’s nothing wrong with 16…Nxd4 either.

17.g3 Nd3+ 18.Kg2 e4! 19.Qd1

Or 19.Rf1 exf3+ 20.Rxf3 Ne1+.

19…0-0-0 20.fxe4

After 20.Nc3 f5 the black knight has firmly ensconced itself on d3. White is
hoping the text will save his skin in the endgame.

20…Qxe4+ 21.Qf3 Qxf3+ 22.Kxf3 Rxd4 23.Nc3 Bc5 24.Ne2 Rd6 25.Nf4

White finally manages to eliminate the blockading knight, but he remains tied
down.

25…Re8 26.Nxd3 Rxd3+ 27.Kg4 Re2

White resigned.

KP 12.6
 Semenenko

Perfiliev

Correspondence game 1947

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4

Fritz’s move. Not the computer but Alexander Fritz (1857-1932), who suggested
the move to Carl Schlechter, who wrote about it in 1904.

6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.cxd4 exd4 10.Qf3+

The continuation 10.Bxb5 Qe7+ 11.Qe2 is not in the spirit of the position and
promises White no more than approximate equality.
10…Nf6!

A surprise! The rook sacrifice is correct.

11.Qxa8 Bc5 12.Bxb5?

This turns out badly. Correct, according to an analysis by Euwe, is 12.Qc6!

Qe7+ 13.Kd1 Bd7 14.Qb7 c6 (threatening 15…Bg4+) 15.f3 Ng4! 16.d3 Nf2+
17.Kc2 Nxh1 18.Nd2 Nf2, with unclear play.

15.Be2 d3! doesn’t bring the win any closer: 16.Nc3 dxe2+ 17.Ke1 Bxf2+!
18.Kxf2 e1Q+! 19.Rxe1 Ng4+ 20.Kf1 Qf6+ of 16.Re1 Re8! 17.Bh5+ Nxh5
18.Rxe7+ Rxe7.

12…Re8+! 13.Kf1

13.Bxe8+ Qxe8+ 14.Kd1 Bg4+ costs White his queen.

13…Ba6!

An important point!

14.Qc6

14.Qxd8 is met by 14…Bxb5+, and mate!

14…Qe7 15.g3

15.Qxe8+ Qxe8 16.Bxa6 won’t save White either: 16…Qa4 17.Be2 d3 18.Bf3
(18.Nc3 Qd4) 18…Qd4 19.Ke1 Qe5+! 20.Kf1 (or 20.Kd1 Ne4, and White is
lost) 20…Ng4 21.Bxg4 Qd4, winning.

15…Bxb5+ 16.Qxb5 Qe4 17.Qc4+

After 17.Rg1 Ng4 it is also finished, and the same goes for 17.Kg1 d3 18.Qxc5
Qf3 19.Qe3 (the only move) 19…Rxe3 20.dxe3 Ng4, and mate.

17…Kg6 18.Kg1 Qf3 19.Qf1 d3

White resigned. He is utterly lost: 20.Nc3 Ng4 21.Nd1 Re2.

KP 12.7

Horch

Darmograi

Correspondence game 1968

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.d3

Not exactly to be recommended.

6…h6 7.Nf3 e4 8.Qe2

Interesting but dubious is 8.dxe4?!. In the famous game Bronstein-Rojahn,

Moscow Olympiad 1956, there followed 8…Nxc4 9.Qd4 Nb6 (9…Nd6!?) 10.c4
c5? (better 10…Bb4+ or 10…Be7, or 10…Nbd7, when White’s pawn centre
does not compensate for the piece) 11.Qd3 Bg4 12.Nbd2 Be7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Ne5
Bh5 15.b3 Nbd7 16.Bb2 Nxe5 17.Bxe5 Nd7 18.Bc3 Bf6 19.Rae1 Bxc3 20.Qxc3
Qf6 21.e5 Qf5 22.f4, and Black was steamrollered.

8…Nxc4 9.dxc4 Bc5

The moves 9…Bd6 and 9…Bg4 also come into consideration.

10.Bf4

According to the theory, 10.Nfd2 0-0 11.Nb3 Bg4 12.Qf1 Bb4+ 13.c3 Be7 gives
Black good play, Salwe-Marshall, Vienna 1908.

A famous game with 10.0-0? is Field-Tenner, New York 1923: 10…0-0 11.Nfd2
Bg4 12.Qe1 Qd7 13.Nb3 Bf3! 14.Bf4 Qg4 15.Bg3 Nh5 16.Nxc5 Nf4 17.Nxe4
Qh3!, and White resigned.

10.h3 0-0 11.Nh2 c6 12.dxc6 e3 13.Bxe3 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Ne4 is also known as
promising for Black, Kopilov-Kondratiev, Soviet Union 1955.

10…0-0 11.Nfd2 Bg4 12.Qf1 c6! 13.dxc6?!

13.h3?! is met by 13…cxd5 14.hxg4 (or 14.b4 Bxb4 15.hxg4 d4 16.a3 Ba5
17.Kd1 Qd7, and White’s position is still awful) 14…Nxg4 15.Bg3 e3!, winning.
Relatively best is 13.Nc3, followed by 13…Re8 14.Nb3 Bb4 15.h3 Bh5 16.g4
Bg6 17.0-0-0 Bxc3 18.dxc6 Qb6 19.bxc3 Qxc6, with good play for Black,
Ferberov-Seremeta, Soviet Union 1962.

13…Qb6! 14.Nb3

14.cxb7 Qxb2 15.bxa8Q Qc1, mate, guarantees a quick demise for White.

14…Nh5! 15.Bc1

After 15.cxb7 Nxf4! 16.bxa8Q Rxa8 Black has an overwhelming attack, e.g.
17.Nxc5 Qxb2 18.Nb3 Be2.

15…e3! 16.Nxc5

Or 16.fxe3 Bxe3, with a simple win. The white king is utterly exposed.

16…exf2+ 17.Qxf2 Rfe8+ 18.Kf1 Re2 19.Qd4 Rae8 20.Bd2 Bh3! 21.gxh3

Or 21.Rg1 Qxc6, threatening 22…Qf3 and mate.

21…Qxc6
White resigned. 22.Qd5 is met by 22…Qf6+, and wins.

KP 12.8

Van der Heijden

Schouten

Dieren 1969

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ Bd7!?

The most commonly played move is 6…c6.

7.Qe2 Be7

The main advantage of 7…Bd6 is that the e-pawn is well-protected. After 8.Nc3
0-0 9.Bxd7 Qxd7 Black has some compensation.

8.d4?!

Safer is 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bxd7 Qxd7 10.0-0 Nxd5 11.Qxe5 c6, and chances are about
equal. If White, instead of taking on d7, goes 9.0-0, Black can reply 9…c6:
10.dxc6 Nxc6 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Nf3 Nd7 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.Qxe5 Re8, and
although White is two pawns up, Black has good compensation in the bishop
pair and his lead in development.

8…exd4 9.b4

The point of the previous move. Now Black cannot take on b4, so White wins a
piece. 9.Bd2 also wins the a5 knight, but after 9…0-0! 10.Bxa5 Nxd5 11.Ne4
Nf4 12.Qf3 Bxb5 13.Qxf4 f5 14.Ng3 Bg5 Black has compensation for the piece,
Kopilov-Manteifel, correspondence game 1965.

The game Brokko-Khan, Hradec Kralove 1992, saw 9.Bxd7+ Qxd7 10.b4, and
Black won in the same way as in the present game: 10…0-0-0 11.bxa5 Bb4+
12.Kd1 Nxd5 13.a6 Rhe8 14.axb7+ Kb8 15.Ne4 f5 16.f3 fxe4 17.fxe4 Ne3+
18.Bxe3 dxe3+ 19.Kc1 Qd4.

9…0-0 10.bxa5 Bb4+ 11.Kd1

Forced, as other moves lose at once: 11.Bd2? Re8 or 11.Kf1? Re8 12.Qc4 Bxb5
13.Qxb5 Re1 mate.

11…Re8 12.Qc4 Bxb5 13.Qxb5

13.Qxb4 is met by 13…Be2+ 14.Kd2 Nxd5. winning.

13…Nxd5 14.Qd3

In Kurkin-Manteifel, correspondence game 1967, White tried 14.a3. Black

played 14…Bxa5 15.Qd3 (after 15.Qxa5, 15…Nc3+ wins) 15…Ne3+! 16.fxe3
(or 16.Bxe3 dxe3 17.Qxd8 e2+ 18.Kc1 Raxd8 19.Nf3 e1Q+ 20.Nxe1 Bxe1,
winning, according to Manteifel) 16…Qxg5, and Black won.
14…Ne3+! 15.fxe3

Or 15.Bxe3 dxe3 16.Qxd8 e2+, winning.

15…Qxg5 16.h4

After 16.exd4 Qg4+ 17.Qf3 Qxd4+ the game is also finished.

16…Qxg2 17.Qf1 Qg4+ 18.Qe2 Qe4

White is driven around in circles!

19.Rg1 dxe3 20.Bb2 Rad8+ 21.Kc1 Bd2+ 22.Kd1 Bc3+ 23.Kc1 Rd2
24.Rxg7+

Desperation…

24…Bxg7 25.Nxd2 exd2+

White resigned in view of 26.Qxd2 Bh6! 27.Qxh6 Qe1 mate.

KP 12.9

Honfi

Zagorovsky

Correspondence game 1963

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6
8.Qf3

This queen sortie was made famous by the quick victory it yielded Bogoljubow
against Euwe in 1941.
8…Rb8

Euwe’s exchange sacrifice 8…cxb5 9.Qxa8 is pretty dubious. After 9…Bc5

10.0-0 0-0 11.b4! (sidetracking the bishop) 11…Bxb4 12.Nc3 of 9…Qd7 (to
lock in the queen with 10…Nc6) 10.Qf3 Bb7 11.Qe2 Be7 12.d3 Nc6 13.c3
White will be able to hold.

But 8…Qc7, 8…h6 and 8…Be7 are playable moves for Black.

9.Bd3

After 9.Bxc6+ Nxc6 10.Qxc6+ Nd7 11.d3 Be7 Black has compensation for the
sacrificed pawns, e.g. 12.Nf3 Bb7 13.Qa4 0-0 14.Nbd2 Nc5, with excellent play.

After 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 Black also has compensation.

9…h6 10.Ne4 Nd5! 11.Ng3

The game Paoli-Kluger, Bucharest 1954, saw 11.Nbc3 Nf4 12.Bf1 f5 13.Ng3 g6
14.d3 Bg7 15.Nge2 Ne6 16.Qg3 Kf7, with great play for Black.

In the ’80s of the previous century, John van der Wiel tried the set-up 11.b3 g6
12.Qg3 a few times. After 12…Nf4 13.Bb2! Bg7, as in Van der Wiel-Timman,
Dutch championship, Leeuwarden 1981, 14.Qxf4 exf4 15.Bxg7 Kd7 16.Bf6!
Qf8 17.0-0 is a promising queen sacrifice, according to Palkövi.

11…g6 12.b3

After 12.0-0 Black can also play 12…h5!, or else 12…Bg7 13.Nc3 0-0 14.Be2
Rb4 15.Nxd5 cxd5 16.Qa3 Nc6 17.d3 h5, with good compensation, Estrin-
Ragozin, Moscow 1955.

12…h5!

12…f5?! allows White to play 13.Nxf5!? Bxf5 14.Bxf5 gxf5 15.Qh5+ Kd7
16.Qxf5+, with unclear complications, Honfi-Kluger, Hungary 1962.

13.0-0 Bg7 14.Ba3

After 14.h3 h4 15.Ne2 f5 the Black position looks threatening.

14…Bg4 15.Qe4 f5 16.Qe1 h4 17.f3?

A serious mistake for a correspondence game. Correct was 17.Ne2. After 17…e4
White can prevent losing material with 18.Nec3.

17…hxg3 18.Qxg3

After 18.fxg4? Qb6+ it is curtains.

18…Bh5 19.Re1

During his calculations White had put his trust in 19.Bxf5, overlooking the
strong reply 19…Nf4!.

19…Kf7 20.Nc3

Now White remains a piece down. The two pawns do not constitute sufficient
compensation.

20…Nb4 21.Kh1 Nxd3 22.cxd3 Qd4 23.Rac1 Bf6 24.Na4 f4 25.Qh3 Bxf3!

Black provides a nice finale.

26.Qxf3 Rxh2+! 27.Kxh2 Rh8+ 28.Qh3 Rxh3+ 29.Kxh3

Or 29.gxh3 Qf2+ 30.Kh1 Qf3+ 31.Kh2 Qg3+.

29…Qf2

White resigned in view of 30.Kh2 f3 31.Rg1 Qh4 mate.

KP 12.10

Cserna
 Pulay

Budapest 1971

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6
8.Be2 h6 9.Nh3

Steinitz’s move, given a new lease of life by Fischer in 1963. An important

difference with 9.Nf3 is that Black cannot take the initiative at once with 9…e4,
winning a tempo.

9…g5!?

It is important that White needn’t fear 9…Bxh3 10.gxh3, e.g. 10…Qd5 11.Bf3
e4 12.Nc3 Qe5 13.Bg2 Bd6 14.Qe2 0-0 15.d3 exd3 16.Qxe5 Bxe5 17.cxd3 ‘and
Black will have to fight hard for a draw’, writes Mikhalchishin.

Steinitz called it ‘advantage for White’ at the time. Besides the text, Black also
has the possibilities 9…Bc5, 9…Bd6 and 9…Qd4, to mention only a few.

10.d3

After 10.c3?! Qd5 11.Bf3 e4 12.Be2 Bd6 13.b4 Nc4 14.Qb3 Ne5! White was in
bad trouble in the correspondence game Markov-Chigorin, 1890!

10…g4

Mikhalchishin also gives 10…Nb7, 10…Bd6, 10…Qd5 or 10…Rg8 here, a wide

choice.

11.Ng1 Bc5 12.Be3?!

Better is 12.Nc3, although 12…Rb8 (Mikhalchishin gives 12…Nb7 13.Na4 Bd6

14.Be3 Nd5 15.Qd2, with complicated play) 13.Na4 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 Qd4+
15.Be3 Qxa4 16.b3 Qb4 17.Qd2 Nd5 is probably good for Black, Keschitz-
Zsinka, Budapest 1993.

12…Bxe3 13.fxe3 Qb6 14.Qc1 Nd5 15.e4 Ne3 16.Bf1

Something has clearly gone wrong with the white set-up. Black has excellent
play for his pawn.

16…f5! 17.Nc3

17.exf5 can be met very strongly by 17…0-0.

17…0-0 18.Na4 Qb4+ 19.c3 Qxa4 20.Qxe3

The terrible knight on e3 has gone, but now White is smothered by the black
pawns.

20…f4
21.Qc1

Why not play 21.Qc5? After 21…Nb3 White has 22.Qd6, with the threat of
perpetual check, while 21…Re8 22.Qd6 Kg7 23.Be2 is far from clear.

21…c5 22.h3 h5 23.Be2 Qe8 24.hxg4 hxg4 25.Qd2

According to Florian, 25.b4 may be better, but then 25…cxb4 26.cxb4 Nc6
simply looks good for Black.

25…Be6 26.Bd1 Rd8 27.g3 Kg7 28.gxf4 exf4 29.Bb3 c4! 30.Qf2 Nxb3!

But not 30…cxb3? 31.Qxa7+ Rf7 32.Qxa5.

31.axb3 cxd3 32.Rxa7+ Rf7 33.Qh4?

The only move was 33.Kd2; now Black will finish the game.

33…d2+ 34.Kf2 g3+ 35.Kg2 Bh3+!

White resigned in view of 36.Rxh3 Qxe4+ 37.Nf3 Qe2+, or 36.Kxh3 Qe6+

37.Qg4+ Qxg4+ 38.Kxg4 d1Q+.

KP 12.11

Fomenko

Radchenko

Sochi 1967
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6
8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Qd4

Black usually plays 10…Qc7 or 10…Bd6, but here he is willing to invest a

tempo to stop White from castling kingside.

11.f4

Good for Black is 11.Ng4 Bxg4 12.Bxg4 Bc5 13.0-0 0-0 (13…e3 may even be
stronger) 14.c3 Qe5 15.d4 exd3 16.b4 Nxg4 17.Qxg4 Bd6 18.f4 Qe2, thus
Radchenko.

11…Bc5 12.Rf1 Qd8 13.c3 Nd5 14.Qa4

14.b4? is met by 14…Qh4+ 15.g3 Qxh2 16.bxc5 Qxg3+ 17.Rf2 Nxf4. Black has
all kinds of threats and already a handful of pawns for his piece. But 14.g3 Bh3
15.b4 is an interesting idea.

14…0-0 15.b4?!

Highly dangerous, capturing this piece! Probably better is 15.Qxe4, although

Keres indicates that after 15…Re8!? 16.d4 Bb6 Black has compensation for the
sacrificed material.

15…Qh4+ 16.Kd1

16.g3 Qxh2 17.bxc5 Qxg3+ 18.Kd1 Rd8 also gives Black a strong attack.

16…Rd8 17.Kc2

Not, of course, 17.bxc5? Ne3, and mate!

17…Bf5

In the earlier correspondence game Romanov-Baturinsky, 1964/65, 17…Qxh2

18.bxc5 Qxg2 19.Re1 Qf2 20.Nxf7 Qxe1 21.Qxe4 Ne3+! also led to a win.
18.bxc5 e3+ 19.Kb2

Or 19.d3 Qxh2 20.Qxa5 Qxg2 21.Re1 Nxf4, with threats against d3.

19…Rdb8+!
After six more moves we’ll see why Black doesn’t play the queen’s rook here!

20.Ka3 Qd8 21.Bb2 exd2 22.Rd1 Bc2! 23.Qxc2 Nb3! 24.Nc4

Or 24.axb3 Qa5 mate, or 24.Qxb3 Qa5+ 25.Qa4 Qxc5+, and it’s finished as well.

24…Nxa1 25.Qxd2

Or 25.Bxa1 Ne3! 26.Nxe3 Qa5+ 27.Qa4, and now 27…Qxc5+ wins again.

25…Qb6!

The beautiful point: 26.cxb6 axb6+, and mate! So White duly resigned.

KP 12.11

Belov

Nezhmetdinov

Omsk 1961

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6
8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Qc7 11.d4

The alternative is 11.f4.

11…exd3 12.Nxd3 Bd6 13.Nd2

13.b3 is probably White’s best move, as witness Arakhamia-Smyslov, London
1996.

13…Ba6 14.Nf3 0-0 15.0-0 Rad8 16.b3 Rfe8 17.Re1?

Now square f2 is fatally compromised; but after 17.Bb2 Ne4 Black also hangs
on to the initiative.

17…Ng4
18.h3

18.g3 is met by 18…Bc5 19.Rf1 Qb6 20.Qe1 Rxd3! 21.cxd3 Bxd3

(Nezhmetdinov).

18…Nxf2! 19.Kxf2

19.Nxf2 Bh2+ costs White his queen.

19…Qb6+ 20.Kf1 Bg3 21.Qd2

How is Black to make progress now?

21…c5!

Not so obvious, blocking the b6-f2 diagonal like this, but the threat of 22…c4
forces White to weaken his position further.

22.c4 Bxe1 23.Kxe1 Nxc4! 24.bxc4 Bxc4 25.Kf2

Or 25.Kf1 Rxe2! 26.Kxe2 Rxd3 27.Qxd3 Bxd3+ 28.Kxd3 Qf6 29.Rb1 Qf5+,
winning.

25…Bxd3 26.Bxd3 c4+

Now the diagonal is open again!

27.Kg3 Rxd3 28.Qb2

It is also finished after 28.Qf4 Re2, 28.Qf2 Qf6 29.Rb1 Qg6+ or 28.Qc2 Qg6+
29.Kh2 Qd6+.

28…Qg6+ 29.Kf2 Qe4 30.Bd2 Rxf3+ 31.gxf3! Qh4+

White resigned.

KP 12.12
 Jovcic

Molenbroek

Correspondence game 1976

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6
8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.f4 exf3 12.Nxf3 0-0 13.d4 c5 14.dxc5 Bxc5
15.Qxd8 Rxd8

Despite the queen swap, White continues to have problems developing. Black
has enough compensation for the pawn he is down.

16.Bd2

Black also has good chances after 16.c3 Re8 17.Kf1 Rxe2! 18.Kxe2 Ba6+
19.Kd1 Ng4 20.Kc2 Nf2 21.Rd1 Nxd1 22.Kxd1 Rd8+ 23.Bd2 Nc4, Mednis-
Bisguier, New York 1957/58.

16…Nc6 17.Nc3 Ng4!

Less strong is 17…Nb4?! 18.0-0-0 Bf5 19.Ne1 Ng4 20.a3 Nc6 21.Nd3 Bb6
22.h3, and Black’s compensation evaporated, Timman-Bisguier, Sombor 1974.

18.h3 Nb4!

After 18…Ne3 19.Bxe3 Bxe3 20.Rd1 Black’s compensation is doubtful.

19.hxg4 Nxc2+ 20.Kd1 Nxa1

Although Black is an exchange up, there is still the question of whether the
knight on a1 is going to fall.

21.Kc1 Bxg4 22.Kb1

22.Bd1 is met by 22…Bf5.

22…Rab8

With the threat of 23…Bxf3 and 24…Rxd2.

23.Bf4

23.Bc1 is met by 23…Nc2!, as 24.Kxc2 fails to 24…Bf5+!. After 23.Rd1 Black

also plays 23…Nc2!, e.g. 24.Kxc2 Bf5+ 25.Kc1 Ba3! 26.bxa3 (26.Na4? Rdc8+
27.Bc3 Bxb2+) 26…Rdc8 (threatening 27…Rb1 mate) 27.Bf4 Rxc3+ 28.Kd2
Rc2+ 29.Ke1, with roughly equal chances, according to an analysis by
Molenbroek.

23…Rb4 24.Bc7 Rd7 25.Ba5

25…Nc2! 26.Ne5!

The only move, but it will do. Four of the five black pieces are hanging, so
Black has to go for perpetual check. Bad, incidentally, was 26.Kxc2? Bf5+
27.Kc1 Be3+, while 26.Bxb4?! Nxb4 also favours Black.

26…Na3+ 27.Ka1 Nc2+

Draw.

KP 12.12

Arakhamia

Smyslov

London 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6
8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 exd3 12.Nxd3 Qc7 13.b3!

This move is preferable to 13.h3.

13…0-0

Taking on h2 is always bad: 13…Bxh2? 14.Bb2, with advantage for White. But
13…c5 14.Na3 Rb8!? or 13…Bf5 14.Bb2 0-0-0!?, Short-Van der Sterren, Wijk
aan Zee 1987, look playable.
14.Bb2 Ne4

The moves 14…Re8, 14…Bf5 and 14…Nd5 have also been tried here. The
theory books don’t make clear what Black’s best option is either.

15.Nc3
15…Nxc3

In Morozevich-Onischuk, Moscow 1996, 15…Bf5?! 16.h3 Rad8 17.0-0 Rfe8

18.Bf3 Ng5 19.Bg4 Bg6 20.Kh1 Qb7 21.f4 Bb8 22.Bh5 Bxd3 23.cxd3 Re3
24.Qg4 turned out to be unsatisfactory for Black.

Another possibility is 15…f5, when play could continue 16.h3 Ba6 (or 16…Bb7
17.0-0 Rad8) 17.0-0 Rad8 18.Qe1 c5 19.Kh1, and now not 19…Nc6?! 20.Nxe4
fxe4 21.Nxc5! Bxc5 (21…Bxe2 22.Qxe2 Bxc5 23.Qc4+, and White wins back
the piece) 22.Bxa6 Qf4, Morozevich-Nenashev, Alushta 1994, and now 23.Rd1!
Bd6 24.Rxd6 Qxd6 (or 24…Rxd6 25.Ba3) 25.Qxe4 would have won – but 19…
Bb7!?, when White keeps a small plus after 20.Nxe4!? Bxe4 21.Qc3, Palkövi.

16.Bxc3 c5 17.h3

After 17.Qd2 Nc6 18.h3 Nd4 19.Bxd4 cxd4 20.0-0 Bb7 Black controls the
position with his bishop pair, Arakhamia.

17…c4

Now 17…Nc6 is too slow: 18.0-0 Nd4 19.Bxd4 cxd4 20.Bf3, with advantage for
White, Arakhamia.

18.Nb2 Be5

An alternative was 18…Rd8!?, e.g. 19.Qd4 Bf8 20.Qe5 Qxe5 21.Bxe5 Nc6
22.Bc3 cxb3 23.cxb3 Re8 24.Kf1, with an unclear position, Arakhamia.

19.Qd2 Bxc3 20.Qxc3 Re8 21.Nd1 f5!

Black still has counterplay for the pawn.

22.Ne3 f4 23.Nd5 Qf7 24.Qxa5 f3 25.gxf3

25.Ne3 fxe2 is not clear either.

25…Qxf3 26.0-0-0 Rxe2 27.Rhg1 cxb3 28.axb3 Bf5?

Here the old grandmaster blunders. 28…Bb7 would have been met by the
winning 29.Rxg7+! Kxg7 30.Rg1+ Kf8 31.Qc5+ Ke8 32.Qb5+, but after 28…
Be6! things would have been very unclear, e.g. 29.Qc7 Qf7 30.Qxf7+ Bxf7 31.f4
Rc8, again according to Arakhamia.

29.Nf6+! Kf7

Or 29…Kh8 30.Rd8+, and mate.

30.Qc7+ Re7

Or 30…Kxf6 31.Rd6+ Be6 32.Qxg7+ Kf5 33.Qg6+ Kf4 34.Qf6+, and Black is
mated.

31.Rxg7+! Kxg7 32.Qxe7+ Kh8 33.Rg1

Black resigned.

KP 13.4

Voigt

Mikhalchishin

Dortmund 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.e5 Ne4

The usual move is 5…d5, but 5…Ng4 and the text-move are playable as well.

6.Qe2
After 6.Bd5 Nc5 or 6.0-0 d5 Black is OK.

6…Nc5 7.0-0 Ne6 8.Rd1 d5 9.Bb3?!

9.Bb5! is better, e.g. 9…Bc5 10.c3 Bd7 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.cxd4 Bb6 13.Nc3 0-0,
with roughly equal chances, thus Mikhalchishin.

9…Bc5 10.c3 0-0 11.Bc2 f6!

Sharply played. Black’s chances are on the f-file, but the text also weakens the
kingside. This is what White is now going for.

12.cxd4 Ncxd4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4

13…Bxd4? is less good: 14.Qh5 g6 15.Bxg6 Qe7 16.Bh6, with an attack

(Mikhalchishin).

14.Rxd4 Bxd4 15.Qd3

The point of White’s play.

15…Bxf2+!

A spanner in White’s works!

16.Kxf2 fxe5+ 17.Kg1 Bf5 18.Qe2 Bxc2 19.Qxc2 Qf6

19…Qh4 was also possible: 20.Qe2 Rf5 21.Nc3 Raf8.

20.Qe2 Rf7

According to Mikhalchishin, 20…e4 21.Nc3 Qb6+ 22.Kh1 (or 22.Be3 d4 23.Bf2

e3) 22…Rae8 and 23…d4 was also strong.

21.Nc3 Qb6+ 22.Kh1

After 22.Be3 Black plays 22…d4 23.Bf2 Rxf2!, and wins.

22…d4 23.Ne4 Raf8

White is powerless against the attack of the black pieces.

24.Bd2

After 24.Bg5 Black also goes 24…Qxb2!, with the point of 25.Qxb2 Rf1+ and
mate.

24…Qxb2 25.Rg1 Qxa2 26.Ng5 Rf5 27.Qd3 h6 28.Ne4 b6 29.Ng3 R5f7

30.Nh5 Qe6

White resigned.

KP 13.7

Bartolik
 Malinin

Correspondence game 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5
8.Nxc6?!

White goes in search of adventure, but he’ll live to regret it.

8…Bxf2+ 9.Kf1 Qh4

9…bxc6 may also be playable, as witness a very old game: 10.Bxc6+ Kf8 11.c4
(the threat was 11…Ba6+) 11…Ba6 12.b3 dxc4 13.Ba3+ Kg8 14.Qxd8+ Rxd8
15.Bxe4 Bd4, and Black won, Pinedo-Anderssen, Amsterdam 1861!

10.Qxd5

After 10.Nd4+ Keres indicates 10…c6 11.Nf3 Ng3+ 12.Kxf2 Ne4++ 13.Ke3
Qf2+ 14.Kd3 Bf5, winning. A possible continuation is 15.Nd4 Bg6 16.Qe1
Nd6+! 17.Kc3 Nxb5+ 18.Nxb5 Qxc2+ 19.Kd4 Qd3+ 20.Kc5 Qc4+ 21.Kd6 0-0-
0+ 22.Ke7 Rhe8 mate!

It is doubtful whether there’s more in it for Black after 16.Rf1! than a draw with
16…Nd2+ 17.Kc3 Qe3+ 18.Bd3 Ne4+ 19.Kb3 Nc5+ (Nunn). 16…Qxg2 17.Ke3
cxb5 may be worth a try.

10…Bc5

The attack is conducted at daggers drawn. There is no time for the ‘safe’ 10…0-0
(11.Nd2!), and after 10…Be6 11.Nd4+ Ke7 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Qd7+ White has at
least a draw.

11.g3
The queen swap 11.Qd8+ Qxd8 12.Nxd8+ Kxd8 also favours Black, as does
11.Nd4+ c6, e.g. 12.Bxc6+ (12.Be3 0-0) 12…bxc6 13.Qxc6+ Bd7! 14.Qxa8+
Ke7 15.Bg5+ Nxg5 16.Qd5 Qf4+ 17.Ke1 (17.Nf3 Bb5+) 17…Qe3+ 18.Ne2 Bg4
19.Qb7+ Ke6 20.Qa6+ Kxe5 21.Rf1 Rd8 22.Qc4 Qc1+ 23.Nxc1 Rd1 mate!
Thus an analysis by Malinin.

11…Qh3+

If the king hunt fails to pay dividends, Black still has 11…Bh3+ to fall back on.

12.Ke1 Bf2+ 13.Ke2

Or 13.Kd1 Bg4+ 14.Be2 Qg2! 15.Bxg4 Qxh1+ 16.Ke2 Nxg3+, winning the
queen.

13…Qg4+
14.Kf1?

Fleeing into the open is most certainly preferable. After 14.Kd3 Nc5+ 15.Kc3
Maroczy won with 15…Be6? 16.Nd4+ c6 17.Bxc6+ bxc6 18.Qxc6+ Bd7
19.Qxa8+ Ke7 as early as 1907, but here 20.Qd5! Bxd4+ 21.Qxd4 Ne4+ 22.Kd3
Qf3+ 23.Be3 doesn’t give Black enough of an attack.

15…0-0 is also less clear in view of 16.Ne7+ Kh8 17.Bf4 c6 (17…Be6 18.Qg2)
18.h3! Qxf4 19.gxf4 cxd5.

Black’s best bet is 15…Bd7, after which White’s last chance for equality is out
the window, e.g. 16.Nxa7 c6! or 16.Bf4 bxc6 17.Bxc6 0-0-0 18.Bxd7+ Nxd7 or
16.e6 fxe6 17.Ne5 Ne4+ 18.Kb3 exd5 19.Bxd7+ Qxd7 20.Nxd7 Kxd7.

14…0-0! 15.Nd2

Or 15.Ne7+ Kh8 16.Nxc8 Qf3 17.Qd3 Qxh1+ 18.Ke2 Raxc8, winning.

15…Qh3+ 16.Ke2 Bg4+ 17.Nf3

Or 17.Kd3 bxc6 18.Qxc6 Rad8+, and it is curtains.

17…Qg2

White resigned.

KP 13.7

Eijk

Arp
Alkmaar 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.Bb5 Ne4 8.Nxd4

This position usually arises via the move order 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5
8.0-0.

8…0-0

The most commonly played move is 8…Bd7, but Black will also get away with
the text.

9.Nxc6

Safer is 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Be3 or 10.Nxc6.

9…bxc6 10.Bxc6

This move is regarded as bad because of Black’s reply here, but it is probably
playable anyway.

10…Ba6! 11.Qxd5!

Bad is 11.Bxa8? Bxf1 12.Be3 Bxe3 13.fxe3 Bxg2, and Black has a winning
position, Herrmann-Keres, correspondence game 1936.

11…Bxf1 12.Qxe4
12…Qd1!?

Both 12…Bb5 13.Nc3 and 12…Ba6 13.Nc3 Rb8 14.Qg4 Qd4 15.Qg3 Rfd8 lead
to unclear play.

13.Nc3 Rad8!

The point of the previous move.

14.Nxd1 Rxd1 15.Bd2

The only move.

15…Rxa1 16.Be1

And again!

16…Bc4 17.h3?!

It makes more sense to go 17.g3 in order to be able to play Kg2 and keep
covering the f2 pawn. An example is 17…Be6 18.Kg2 Rd8 19.Bc3 Rxa2 20.Qe2
Bf8, with unclear play, Bakker-Arp, Hillegom 1995.

17…Be6 18.Kh2 Rd8 19.f4

Forced; 19.Bc3 now runs into 19…Bxf2.

19…Rdd1 20.Bc3

20.Bh4 is met by 20…Rh1+ 21.Kg3 Rae1 (21…Raf1 is not convincing after

22.Qe2) 22.Qa4 Rhf1, with winning threats.

20…Bf2! 21.g4 Rg1 22.Qd3

After 22.Qf3 Bg3+ (unclear is 22…Bh4 23.f5) 23.Qxg3 Rxg3 24.Kxg3 Rxa2 the
endgame an exchange up is good for Black, although he will still have to fight
hard for the win.

22…Rad1 23.Qf3 Bh4 24.a3?

This loses at once. 24.Qe3 and 24.f5 are more tenacious.

24…Rgf1

White resigned.

KP 13.11

Okhotnik

Ofreniuk

Kiev 1967

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Bxc6
bxc6 9.0-0 Be7 10.f3 Nc5 11.f4 Ne4 12.f5 0-0?!

It is very unwise to castle kingside with the white pawn duo at the door. A
stronger move is 12…Bc5, as played in the game Keller-Keres, Zurich 1961:
13.c3?! (better is 13.e6 or 13.Nc3) 13…Qe7 14.e6 fxe6 15.Qh5+ g6! 16.fxg6 0-
0-0 17.Be3 hxg6 18.Qe2 Rxh2! 19.Qa6+ Kb8 20.Kxh2 Qh4+ 21.Kg1 Rh8
22.Rf8+ Rxf8 (22…Bxf8? would have been fatal at the last gasp: 23.Nxc6+!
Bxc6 24.Bxa7+, and Black is mated!) 23.Nd2 Ng3, and White resigned.

13.Nc3!

The centrally positioned knight has to go!

13…Nxc3 14.bxc3 c5 15.Nb3

Also good is 15.Ne2, e.g. 15…Bb5 16.Rf3 Bg5 17.Nf4 Bc4 18.Nh5 Bxc1
19.Qxc1 Qh4 20.Rh3 Qe4 21.Nf6+ gxf6 22.Qh6 Qxf5 23.Rg3+ Qg6 24.exf6,
and Black was lost, Rogers-Solozhenkin, Australia 1995.

15…c4 16.Nd4 c5

Or 16…Bc5 17.Qh5 f6 (White was threatening 18.f6) 18.e6 Be8 19.Qh4 Qe7
20.Rf3, with a strong white attack.

17.Ne2 Bc6
18.f6!

Prising open the castled position.

18…gxf6 19.Bh6 fxe5

After 19…Re8, 20.Nd4!, as in the game, is winning, as 20…Bd7 runs into

21.e6!.

20.Nd4! Bd7 21.Nc6! Qe8

21…Bxc6 22.Qg4+ Bg5 23.Bxg5 Qd7 won’t do either: 24.Rf5! h5 25.Qh3 f6

(otherwise White goes 26.Bf6) 26.Bxf6 Rxf6 27.Rxf6 Qxh3 28.gxh3 Rc8
29.Raf1 e4 30.R1f5, winning.

22.Nxe5!

White is not interested in the exchange, of course.

22…Be6 23.Qf3 Kh8 24.Qg3 Rg8 25.Nxf7+!

An amusing decision; after 25…Qxf7 White plays the deadly 26.Qe5+. Black
resigned.

KP 13.13

Torre

Bigelow

New York 1924

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.Be3
Bd7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.0-0

More accurate is 10.Nd2, e.g. 10…Nxd2 11.Qxd2 Qe7 12.Nb3 Bb6 13.Qc3, with
good play for White.

10…Qe7 11.f3
11…Ng5?!

With 11…Nd6! Black exploit the fact that Be3 is not covered. After 12.Bf2 Nf5
he is fine.

12.f4 f6?!

A nice but risky idea. An alternative was 12…Ne4, intending to meet 13.Nd2
with 13…Nd6!? after all.

13.fxg5 fxe5 14.Nc3 exd4

14…0-0-0 15.Qd3 exd4 16.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 17.Qxd4 Kb8 has been recommended
as better, but after 18.Na4 Black is still in big trouble.

15.Bxd4 Be6

15…0-0-0 is met by 16.Qd3 again.

16.Qd3 Kd7

The king prefers to stay in the centre!

17.Na4 Bd6 18.Qe3!

Preventing a possible …c5 and covering pawn g5.

18…Rhe8 19.Rae1 Bg4 20.Qd2 Be6

20…Qd8 can be met strongly by 21.Rf7+.

21.c4

Threatening 22.c5.

21…Bb4 22.Bc3 Bxc3 23.bxc3 Qa3 24.cxd5 Bxd5

Other moves won’t fit the bill either: 24…cxd5 25.Qd4! of 24…Qxa4
25.dxe6++ Kc8 26.Qd7+ Kb7 27.Rb1+ Ka6 28.Rb4, and it’s finished.
25.Qd4 Rxe1 26.Rxe1 Qf8 27.Nc5+ Kd6

Black resigned before White could play the mating move 28.Re6.

KP 13.14

Okhotnik

Sokolov

Soviet Union 1981

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Bxc6
bxc6 9.0-0 Bc5

For 9…Be7, see the game Okhotnik-Ofreniuk, Kiev 1967.

10.f3 Ng5 11.f4

Probably more accurate is 11.Be3, e.g. 11…Bb6 (or 11…0-0 12.f4, transposing
to the game) 12.Qd2!?, although things are not so very clear after 12…Ne6, or
even 12…f6!?.

11…Ne4 12.Be3 0-0

An alternative is 12…Bb6 13.Nd2 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 c5, with an unclear position,

e.g. 15.Nf3 d4 16.Bf2 Bc6 17.Bh4 Qd7, Masternak-Klovans, Katowice 1993.

13.Nd2 f5?!
13…Nxd2 14.Qxd2 Qe7 15.Nb3 Bb6 16.a4 (also good is 16.Qf2) 16…a5
17.Qc3 also gives White a slight advantage: he controls square c5. But 13…f6!?
may be a possibility: 14.Nxe4 dxe4 15.Qe2 (15.Qh5!? g6 16.Qe2 could be an
improvement, according to Gufeld – the pawn on g6 weakens the black castled
position) 15…Bg4 16.Qf2 Qe8, and Black has counterplay.

14.Nxe4 fxe4

14…dxe4 15.Qe2 is also slightly better for White.

15.Qd2 Qe7 16.Nb3 Bb6 17.Qc3 g5?!

17…Rad8 18.Nc5 is simply good for White, which is why Black gets active. But
weakening the king position is quite risky – later we’ll see the deadly threats
along the long diagonal b2-h8. Maybe Black’s best bet was to play 17…Rf7,
followed by …Raf8, and postpone …g7-g5 till later.

18.fxg5 Qxg5

After 18…Bxe3+ 19.Qxe3 Qxe5 20.c3 Rae8 21.Nc5 White enjoys a positional
advantage.

19.Nc5 Bxc5

19…Qe7 runs into the strong 20.Rf6!, e.g. 20…Rxf6 21.exf6, with advantage.

20.Bxc5 Rxf1+

20…Rfe8 is met by 21.Rf6! again, e.g. 21…Rxe5 (21…Qxe5? is refuted by

22.Rf8+) 22.Raf1 Ree8 23.Rf7.

21.Rxf1 Re8
22.b3!

Threatening to take the bishop to b2. The battery on the long diagonal decides,
but the queen must be in front – so not 22.Bd4.

22…a6

Black cannot take the e5 pawn, of course: 22…Rxe5 23.Rf8+ Kg7 24.h4 Qh5
25.Qg3+ Bg4 26.Rf4, and Black might as well resign, or 22…Qxe5 23.Rf8+
Kg7 24.Bd4 (24.Qxe5+ Rxe5 25.Rd8 is also good) 24…Qxd4+ 25.Qxd4+ Kxf8
26.Qh8+ Ke7 27.Qxh7+, with a winning endgame for White.

23.a4

23.Ba3 is also good, e.g. 23…Qxe5? 24.Rf8+ Kg7 25.Qxe5+ Rxe5 26.Rd8, with
the double threat of 27.Rd7 and 27.Bb2.

23…h5 24.h3 h4 25.e6!

Opening the diagonal.

25…Bxe6 26.Ba3 Bd7?

This loses quickly, but the more tenacious 26…Qg7 is equally hopeless for
Black after 27.Qxc6 Qd7 28.Qxa6.

27.Bb2 Qh6 28.Rf6 Qg7 29.Rf8+!

A fine decision.

29…Qxf8 30.Qh8+ Kf7 31.Qf6+ Kg8 32.Qg6+

Black resigned.

KP 14.3
 Aldrete

Oim

Correspondence game 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5

This brings us to the old Max Lange Attack.

6…d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+ Be6 9.Ng5

9…Bf8!?

Absurd as this move looks, it is nevertheless far better than 9…Qxf6? in view of
10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Qh5+, and Black loses his c5 bishop. 9…Qd5 is more usual.

10.Rxe6+

10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Rxe6+ doesn’t yield much: 11…Kf7 12.fxg7 Bxg7 13.Re1 Re8
14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Rxe8+ Qxe8 16.Qd5+ Qf7 17.Qxf7+ Kxf7 18.Na3 d3 19.Nxc4
dxc2 20.Bg5 h6 21.Bd2 Rd8 22.a4 Rxd2, and White resigned, Riddell-Levit,
Chicago 1994.

The critical continuation is 10.Qg4 gxf6 11.Nxf7! Kxf7 12.Qxe6+ Kg7. White
already has perpetual check (13.Qg4+ and 14.Qe6+), but Palkövi’s suggestion
13.Bf4 looks strong.

10…fxe6 11.Nxe6 Qxf6 12.Nxc7+ Kd7 13.Nxa8

13…Bd6!

This is stronger than 13…Qe6 14.Bf4 Bd6 15.Bxd6 Kxd6, and now not 16.Nc3
Qe5! 17.Qd2 Rxa8 18.Re1 Qf5 19.Ne4+ Kc7, with an equal position, as
indicated by Levit, but 16.Na3! Qd5 17.b3!, with advantage for White.

14.Qg4+ Qe6 15.Qxg7+

Easy for Black is 15.Qxe6+ Kxe6 16.Nd2 Kd5 17.b3 (17.Nf3 Rxa8, with
advantage for Black) 17…c3!? 18.Nc4 Rxa8 19.Nxd6 Kxd6 20.Ba3+ Kd5
21.Re1 b5 22.Kf1 d3 23.cxd3 b4 24.Bc1 Ne5 (or 24…a5!?, followed by 25…
a4), and Black is better.

15…Be7 16.Bd2

No stronger is 16.Nd2; Black plays 16…Qe1+ 17.Nf1 Rxa8 18.Qxh7 Rf8 19.f3
Kd8 20.Qe4 Qxe4 21.fxe4 Nb4, and Black should have good compensation for
the sacrificed pawns.

16…Rg8 17.Qxh7 Qg4 18.g3 Ne5 19.Be1?!

This is not going to work, although it was very hard to see this beforehand –
even with the help of a computer. 19.Na3 may be a better move: 19…Nf3+
20.Kh1 Nxd2 21.Re1 Rg7 22.Qh6 c3 (22…Rg5!? is also worth looking at)
23.bxc3 dxc3 24.Nb5 Bc5 25.Qf6 Ne4 26.f3 Nf2+ 27.Kg1 Nd3+ 28.Kh1
(28.Kf1? Qh3+ 29.Ke2 Qh7! favours Black) 28…Nf2, and perpetual check.

19…Rg7 20.Qh6 Rg6 21.Qh8

After 21.Qc1 Black wins with 21…Nf3+ 22.Kg2 Nh4+.

21…Nf3+ 22.Kf1 Nh4!

Weaker is 22…Nxe1? 23.Nd2, and things are not clear. The text is winning.

23.Nc7 Kxc7 24.Qe5+ Kc6

White resigned in view of 25.Qxe7 Qh3+ 26.Ke2 Re6+ 27.Qxe6+ Qxe6+ 28.Kf1
d3!.

KP 14.3

Martinek

Vajs

Correspondence game 1985

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+
Be6 9.Ng5 Qd5 10.Nc3 Qf5 11.Nce4 0-0-0

11…Bf8?! is regarded as less good in view of 12.Nxf7! Kxf7 13.Ng5+.

12.g4!? Qe5

Bad is 12…Qd5? in view of 13.fxg7 Rhg8 14.Nf6 Qd6 15.Nge4.

13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.fxg7 Rhg8 15.Bh6 d3 16.c3 d2!? 17.Re2

You can find all this in the theory books. Bad is 17.Nxd2? Bxf2+! 18.Kxf2
Qxh2+, and Black wins, while 17.Bxd2?! Rxg7 is good for Black, of course.

17…Rd3 18.Qf1

18.Nxc5 Qxc5 19.Rxd2 Ne5 20.Rxd3 cxd3 21.Kg2 Qd5+ 22.Kg3 Nf7 23.Qd2
Qd6+ 24.Kg2 e5 25.g5 Qg6 gives Black good chances.

18…Qd5
The old classical game Marshall-Leonhardt, Hamburg 1911, saw 18…Bb6?!
19.Rd1 Nd8 20.g5?! (it was later discovered that 20.Ng3! Qd5 21.Rexd2 is
better for White) 20…Nf7 21.Qg2 Nxh6 22.gxh6 Qh5 23.Rexd2 Rxd2 24.Rxd2
Qxh6, with equality.

19.Rd1 Ne5 20.Qg2

After 20.Nf6 Qf3 21.Nxg8 Qxg4+ 22.Kh1 Qf3+ Black has perpetual check.

20…Nf3+ 21.Kf1
21…Be7

Nunn’s Chess Openings indicates 21…Nh4 22.Qg1 Nf3 23.Qg3 Bd6 24.Nxd6+
cxd6 here, with roughly equal play; but there is probably nothing wrong with the
text-move.

22.g5 Qf5 23.h3 Nh4?!

Later it was found that 23…Ne1! 24.Ng3 Qf7 favours Black.

24.Ng3 Qf3?

Now Black loses hopelessly. Stronger was 24…Qf7, e.g. 25.Qe4 Nf3 26.Qxc4
Rd5, with a still very unclear position.

25.Qxf3 Nxf3 26.Ne4 Kd7 27.Re3!

But not 27.Nf6+? Bxf6 28.gxf6 Ke8, followed by …Kf7.

27…Rxe3 28.fxe3 Ke8 29.Ke2 Nh4 30.Nf6+ Bxf6 31.gxf6 Kf7 32.Bg5 Nf5
33.e4

Black resigned.

KP 14.3

Acebal

Sanz

Linares 1993
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+
Be6 9.Ng5 Qd5 10.Nc3 Qf5 11.Nce4 0-0-0 12.g4 Qe5 13.Nf3

Also an option; but it won’t yield White an advantage.

13…Qd5 14.fxg7
14…Bxg4!?

Interesting! The normal move 14…Rhg8 leads to move repetition: 15.Nf6 Qd6
16.Ne4 (grabbing the exchange with 16.Nxg8 seems too risky – Black will
undoubtedly have good compensation) 16…Qd5 17.Nf6 Qd6 18.Ne4.

15.gxh8Q Rxh8

Black is a rook down, but he has strong attacking chances on the kingside –
White will have to play accurately in order not to lose.

16.h3

Good for Black is 16.Bf4? Qf5!. Of the position after 16.Nf6 Qxf3! 17.Nxg4
Qxd1 18.Rxd1 Rg8 19.h3 h5 Leonhardt established at the time that it is roughly
equal, and Keres talked about ‘at least equal play for Black’. It seems to me that
Black should at least have good compensation for the exchange.

16…Bh5 17.Nf6

In Schoch-P.Littlewood, Winterthur 1986, White played the weak 17.Bf4?, and

after 17…Rg8+ 18.Bg3 Ne5! Black was winning.

17…Qxf3 18.Nxh5

After 18.Qxf3 Bxf3 Black has excellent play for the exchange.

18…Rg8+

After 18…Qxh3 19.Ng3 h5 20.Qf3 Rg8 21.Qxf7 Black has nothing better than
perpetual check with 21…Qg3+, Keres. The text eventually leads to perpetual
check as well, despite Black’s attempt to get more out of it.

19.Ng3 Rxg3+ 20.fxg3 Qxg3+ 21.Kf1 Qxh3+ 22.Kf2 Qh2+ 23.Kf1 Ne5

With 23…Qh3+ Black could have gone for the perpetual straightaway.

24.Rxe5! Qh1+ 25.Ke2 d3+!

Now the white king escapes after 25…Qg2+? 26.Ke1 – when there is no
perpetual!

26.Kd2

And not 26.cxd3? Qg2+ 27.Ke1 Qf2 mate, of course.

26…Qh2+ 27.Re2

And not 27.Kc3? Qxe5+ 28.Kxc4 Qd4+, and mate.

27…Qf4+ 28.Ke1 Qh4+ 29.Kd2 c3+

One last attempt!

30.bxc3

White cannot afford to be complacent: 30.Kxc3? Qd4+, and mate.

30…Qg5+ 31.Ke1 Qg1+ 32.Kd2 Qg5+ 33.Ke1 Qg1+ 34.Kd2 Qg5+

Draw.

KP 14.10

Kapengut

Antoshin

Moscow 1965
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Nxe4

The main variation of the Two Knights Defence.

6.Re1

The surprising move 6.Nc3 can lead to tense complications after 6…dxc3
7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qd5+, but after 6…Nxc3! 7.bxc3 d5 White comes off second-
best in the centre.

6…d5 7.Bxd5

Here, too, 7.Nc3 shows itself to be less than effective in view of 7…dxc4 (more
convincing than 7…dxc3 or 7…Be6) 8.Rxe4+ Be6 9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Rxd4 Qf6!.
The point is revealed after 11.Ne4 Qxd4! 12.Qxd4 Rd8, and Black gets his
queen back.

7…Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qh5

The most commonly played move is 8…Qa5, but the text is quite playable, too.

9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bg5 h6

Black is playing with fire. Safe is 10…Bb4 or 10…Bd6 in order to be able to

meet 11.Bf6 with 11…0-0.

11.Bf6! Qa5?

There now follows a combination that yields White the better position by force.
But after 11…Be7 12.Bxe7 Kxe7 13.Qd3! would also have left White with the
better chances.

The correct defence, therefore, was 11…Qg6!. After 12.Nh4 neither 12…Qg4
nor the bizarre 12…Qh7 is clear.

12.Nxd4! gxf6 13.Nxf6+ Ke7 14.Nxe6

14…fxe6

The alternative was 14…Kxf6, when the white attack strikes home after
15.Qf3+. A possible continuation then is: 15…Kg6 16.Qd3+ f5 17.Nf4+ Kh7
18.Qd7+ Bg7 19.b4! Qxb4 (or 19…Nxb4 20.Re7 Rhg8 21.Nh5) 20.Qxf5+ Kg8
21.Qe6+ Kh7 22.Qg6+.

15.Qd7+! Kxf6 16.Rxe6+ Kg5 17.h4+ Kxh4 18.Rg6

Black resigned.

KP 15.6

Kinzel

Dückstein

Vienna 1958

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5
8.Nc3 Qa5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bd2 Bb4

Black’s safest continuation is probably 10…Qd5, e.g. 11.Bg5 Bd6 12.Bf6! 0-0!
13.Nxd4, liquidating to an equal position.

After 10…Qh5 11.Bg5 the variation from Kapengut-Antoshin, Moscow 1965

arises.
11.Nxd4! Nxd4

After 11…Bxd2 12.Nxc6 White will be better.

12.c3 0-0

Anyone looking for a risky ride can go for 12…0-0-0 13.cxb4 Qf5 14.Rc1 Bd5
15.Ng3 Qg6!, as the frequently praised rook sacrifice 16.Rxc7+ Kxc7 17.Bf4+
Kc8 18.Qxd4 fails after 18…b6: 19.Qe5 Kb7! and 20…Ka8. Or 19.Re7 Qb1+
20.Nf1 Qxf1+! 21.Kxf1 Bxg2+ 22.Kxg2 Rxd4, and only Black can still hope for
a win.

A safe alternative is 12…Be7 13.cxd4 Qd5.

13.cxb4 Qd5 14.Rc1 Qxa2?

Wrong! The rook should have been kept away from c5. After 14…b6 15.Rxc7
Rad8 16.Bc3 Nb5 17.Qf3 Nxc3! 18.Qxc3 Rc8 White’s extra pawn hardly
matters.

15.Rc5! Rad8

White was threatening to force his opponent to surrender in short order with Bc3
and Nf6. The text-move only seems to parry this threat. Maybe 15…Rfd8 would
have been better, when the king has at least a bolthole on f8.

16.Bc3 Nb5

‘And liquidates Bc3’, but look:

17.Nf6+! gxf6 18.Bxf6! Rd5 19.Qd2!

Black resigned.

KP 15.10

Fagerström

Rosenberg

Correspondence game 1974

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5
8.Nc3 Qa5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Neg5 0-0-0 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 Bd6

This series of moves is one of the most important variations of the Two Knights
Defence. 12…Qf5 and 12…Be7 are also playable.

13.Bg5

After 13.Qe2, 13…Qh5 is good for Black, e.g. 14.h3 Rde8 15.Bd2 Ne5!.
13…Rdf8

Black decides to launch an attack. Another continuation is 13…Rde8, intending

to continue with 14…Kd7 15.Re1 Qxe1+! 16.Nxe1 Rxe6 after 14.Qe2.

White can also play 14.Qe1!?, when the endgame after 14…Qxe1+ 15.Raxe1
Kd7 is roughly equal. With the text-move, Black introduces the possibility of
Rf8xf3 into the position.

14.Qe2

In order to meet 14…Rxf3? with 15.Re8+.

14…Kd7?!

The traditional continuation, although one that holds many dangers. Black would
be better advised to chase the bishop back with 14…h6 15.Bh4 g5 16.Bg3 or
play 14…a6, aiming to swap queens by means of Qb5.

15.Re1!
15…d3?!

The execution of the ‘threat’ 15…Rxf3? 16.Qxf3 Qxg5 led to a winning attack
by White in the correspondence game Sundquist-Gabran, 1973/74: 17.Qf7+ Ne7
18.f4.

But the text-move is no improvement. 15…Qxa2?! 16.Qe4 Qa5 17.Be7! also

favoured White in Fette-Stempin, Lyngby 1990. 15…Qd5! is probably Black’s
best bet. White can continue with 16.Bh4, and seems to be slightly better.

16.Qxd3 Rxf3 17.Qxf3 Qxg5 18.Qf7+ Be7

Or 18…Kc8 19.Re8+, or 18…Ne7 19.Rxd6+ cxd6 20.Qe6+ Kc6 21.Qxe7,

winning.

19.b4! a6 20.c4

Or 20.f4! at once, and White is winning.

20…Kd8 21.f4! Qg4 22.Rxc6! bxc6 23.Qxe7+ Kc8 24.Qe4! Kb8 25.b5

This is the decider.

25…axb5 26.Qxc6 Qf5 27.Qxb5+ Qxb5 28.cxb5 Rf8 29.Re4 Rf5 30.a4

Black resigned.
 Friso Nijboer

Scotch Opening

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

SO 1.2

Polovodin

Rutman

Leningrad 1978

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 Bb4

A logical move, the attack is met by a counter-attack. This is how Morphy

played against Paulsen as early as 1857, and the variation has survived the
ravages of time in reasonable health, as witness the fact that Adams went for it
as well in 2002.

5.Nxe5

Another important possibility is 5.d5. Tal was better after 5…Ne7 6.Nxe5 d6
(6…0-0 may trouble the waters here) 7.Bb5+ c6 8.dxc6 0-0 9.Nd7 Bxd7
10.cxd7.

5…Nxe4

Again consistent, but there are alternatives: 5…Qe7 6.Qd3 Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qxe5
8.Bd2 0-0 9.0-0-0, and White has more space and is therefore better. 5…0-0
6.Qd3 Re8 7.Bd2 Nxe5 8.dxe5 Rxe5 9.0-0-0 leads to almost the same position,
only with a rook on e5, which gives Black some extra tactical chances. The most
solid reply is 5…Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qe7 7.Nxc6 Qxe4+, which gives White the
bishop pair and therefore guarantees him a slight advantage.

6.Qg4 Nxc3 7.Qxg7 Rf8 8.a3 Nxd4

Black can still turn back with 8…Ba5. The endgame after 9.Nxc6 dxc6 10.Qe5+
Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.Bd2 Bf5 is clearly better for White.

9.axb4 Nxc2+ 10.Kd2 Nxa1 11.Kxc3

Incredibly enough, this position has occurred no fewer than 30 times in
tournament practice. Personally I would be quite wary of a position in which the
knight on a1 remains locked in for such a long time.

11…a5?

Now everything goes swimmingly for White. Far better is 11…Qe7 12.Bh6 (the
attack with 12.Bc4? is nicely met by 12…d5! 13.Bb5+ c6 14.Nxc6 bxc6
15.Bxc6+ Bd7 16.Bxa8 Qe4!, and Black takes over the attack) 12…a5 13.Qxf8+
Qxf8 14.Bxf8 Kxf8 15.bxa5 Rxa5 16.Nc4, and Black is a pawn up with only few
pieces left on the board. But the knight is still trapped, and I can’t imagine Black
surviving for long.

12.Bc4! axb4+

12…Qe7 is met strongly by 13.Re1!: 13…d5 14.Bb5+ c6 15.Nxc6 Qxe1+

16.Bd2 bxc6 (after 16…Qe4 White has a venomous discovered check: 17.Nb8+!
Kd8 18.Qxf8+ Kc7 19.Qc5+, winning) 17.Bxc6+ Bd7 18.Bxd7+ Kxd7 19.Bxe1,
with advantage for White.

13.Kd2 d5 14.Bb5+ c6 15.Re1 Be6 16.Nxc6 bxc6

16…Qd6 won’t do either: 17.Rxe6+! fxe6 18.Na5+ Kd8 19.Nxb7+, and the
black queen is lost.

17.Rxe6+ Kd7 18.Rxc6 Qe7 19.Kd1!

Developing his last piece, which will deal the death blow.

19…Rab8 20.Bf4

Black resigned.

SO 2.2
 Hoynck van Papendrecht

Jansen

correspondence game 1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5

This double pawn sacrifice is the start of the Belgrade Gambit. This is a double-
edged opening, as accepting the gambit usually leads to great chaos. If it is
rejected, White wins back the pawn, after which the game gets into quieter
waters. So White needs to be able to turn his hand to both set-ups.

5…Nxe4

Both 5…Be7 6.Bf4 d6 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.Nb5 Nxd5 9.exd5 and 5…Nb4 6.Bc4
Nbxd5 7.exd5 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 d6 10.0-0 0-0 lead to a roughly equal
position.

6.Bc4

6.Qe2 has long been popular here, but after 6…f5 7.Ng5 Black has the
intermediate move 7…d3! 8.cxd3 (after recapturing with the queen White is
certainly not better: 8.Qxd3 Nb4 9.Nxb4 Bxb4+ 10.c3 Nxg5 11.cxb4) 8…Nd4
9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qh4 c6 11.dxe4 cxd5 12.exd5 Bg7 (12…Nc2+ at once is too early
in view of 13.Kd1 Nxa1 14.Qd4! Rg8 15.d6 Bxd6 16.Qxd6 Qe7 17.Bf4, and
White is much better), and in view of the check on c2, 13.Kd1 is necessary, after
which Black has no problems.

6…Be7 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.Nb5

The tactical justification of the gambit. With the double attack on c7 White wins
back his pawn, after which he would have the better set-up. But Black has built
up a solid lead in development.

8…Bb4+ 9.c3 Nxf2

10.Qh5

After 10.Kxf2 Qh4+ 11.g3 Qxc4 12.Nbxc7 Bc5+ 13.Be3 Rb8 14.Re1 d6 Black
has completed his development, and has no problems.

10…Nxh1

An important variation here is 10…Bc5, after which White can go for the
surprising 11.0-0: 11…Ne5 12.Nbxc7 d6 13.Rxf2 Bg4 14.Qg5 Qxg5 15.Bxg5
Nxc4 16.Nxa8 Rxa8 17.b3 Bxf2+ 18.Kxf2 Ne5 19.Be7, with equal chances.

11.cxb4 Re8+

Very bad is 11…Nxb4? 12.Bg5 Re8+ 13.Kf1 Re5 14.Re1, after which Black
cannot take on g5, and the white pieces can penetrate. Black resigned in
Kenworthy-Van der Sterren, Ramsgate 1981.

12.Kf1 Re5 13.Qf3 Qh4 14.Bf4

14…Re4!

Magnificent; the third rook move in a row. This rook cannot be taken, of course,
in view of the mate on f2. No good is 14…g5?. After 15.Bxe5 Nxe5 (15…
Qxc4+ cannot save Black either: 16.Kg1 Nxe5 17.Qf6 Qxd5 18.Nxc7 Qd4+
19.Kxh1 Rb8? – trying to save the rook, but White wins the queen after 20.Qd8+
Kg7 21.Ne8+ Kf8 22.Nd6+ Kg7 23.Nf5+) 16.Qf6 Qf2+ 17.Qxf2 Nxf2 18.Nbxc7
Rb8 19.Kxf2 Nxc4 20.Re1 White penetrates via e8, with a very annoying pin on
the eighth rank. Weak is 14…d6 15.Kg1! Bg4 16.Qf1 Be6 17.Nbxc7 Rc8
18.Bxe5 Nxe5 19.Bb3, and White is clearly better.

15.Bd3

Gutman has investigated another spectacular option: after 15.b3 a6 16.Nbxc7

Nd4 17.Bg3 Nxg3+ 18.hxg3 Nxf3 19.gxh4 Nd2+ 20.Kf2 Rb8 21.Bd3 it is still
not clear who is better.

15…Ne5!

Forcing White to swap his strong bishop.

16.Bxe5 Rxe5 17.Nbxc7 Qxh2 18.Nxa8

A draw was agreed here. There follows 18…Ng3+ 19.Kf2 Nh1+, with perpetual
check. A masterpiece, you think? It certainly is, but one that was thought up by
Nunn, as the players were simply following his analysis!

SO 3.2

Van Scheltinga

Cortlever
Amsterdam 1954

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5
8.e5?!

This move has virtually disappeared from practical play, but it remains a
dangerous surprise weapon.

8…Ng4!

Correct. Black need not be afraid of the vulnerable position of the knight and
keeps optimal piece activity.

9.Bf4

After 9.0-0 0-0 10.h3 Nxe5 11.Bxh7+ Kxh7 12.Qh5+ Kg8 13.Qxe5 Black is fine
thanks to his centre and his open files.

9…d4

Black takes up the gauntlet. The normal move 9…0-0? is no good in view of
10.h3 Nxe5 11.Bxe5 Re8 12.f4 f6 13.Qh5 g6 14.Bxg6 hxg6 15.Qxg6+ Kh8 16.0-
0-0 fxe5 17.Ne4!, and White has a dangerous initiative.

The solid 9…f6 is the main reason that 8.e5 has sunk into oblivion; White does
not have much better than 10.h3 Nxe5 (10…fxe5 is interesting, but the position
after 11.Bg3 e4 12.hxg4 exd3 13.Qxd3 is rather unclear) 11.Bxe5 fxe5 12.Qh5+
Kf8 13.Qxe5, and Black has nothing to fear here.

10.Qf3 dxc3

Up to now, everyone has always automatically taken on c3, but 10…g5! is

certainly an option. Personally, I have failed to find anything better than 11.Bg3
dxc3 12.0-0, with unclear compensation.
11.0-0-0 Qd5

Not the only move, but a very logical one. Not to be recommended is 11…cxb2+
12.Kb1, after which the white king is safe. 11…Nxf2 was played by a young
Grischuk, but I have little faith in it.

12.Be4 Qxa2

The die is cast; White is mated on the queenside, so he has to strike.

13.Bxc6+ Kf8

The other king move leads to the same position after 13…Ke7 14.Bg5+ f6
15.exf6+ gxf6 16.Rhe1+.

14.Rd8+ Ke7 15.Bg5+ f6 16.exf6+ gxf6

Bad is 16…Nxf6? 17.Bxf6+ gxf6 18.Re1+ Be6 19.Rd7+, and White wins.

17.Re1+ Be6

The rook is taboo, as after 17…Kxd8? 18.Qxf6+ Black will soon be mated.
18.Rd7+

In a later correspondence game between Furmston and Polotaev White found the
beautiful 18.Rxe6+! Qxe6 19.Rd7+ Kf8 20.Qxg4! cxb2+ 21.Kb1 Qxg4 22.Bh6+
Ke8 23.Rg7+ Kd8 24.Rxg4, with great winning prospects.

18…Kf8

Losing is 18…Ke8? 19.Rxe6+ Qxe6 20.Rd6+, and Black loses hearth and home.

19.Bh6+ Nxh6 20.Qxf6+ Nf7

After 20…Bf7? White has a nice win with 21.Qxh6+ (the prosaic 21.Qxh8+ Ng8
22.bxc3 also wins) 21…Kg8 22.Qg5+ Kf8 23.Rxf7+ Qxf7 24.Qh6+ Kg8
25.Re4!, and now the white threats are getting too strong.

21.Rxf7+ Bxf7 22.Qxh8+ Bg8 23.Qf6+ Bf7

Certainly not 23…Qf7? 24.Qh6+ Qg7 25.Qf4+, and White wins the b4 bishop
with check.

24.Qh8+ Bg8

Draw.

SO 3.3

Pedersen

Ganbold
Golden Sands 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5
8.exd5

A simple variation to adopt. White develops quickly and the amount of required
theoretical knowledge is limited.

8…cxd5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bg5 c6 11.Qf3

The main line. 11.Na4, with which White wants to control c5, and 11.Ne2, on its
way to d4, are the other popular choices.

11…Bd6

I like this plan. Black does not fear the endgame and positions his pieces as
actively as possible. More usual here is 11…Be7, with equal chances.

12.Rfe1

What is of critical importance, of course, is what the endgame after 12.Bxf6

Qxf6 13.Qxf6 gxf6 is going to look like. Black gets a doubled pawn and the
pawn formation c6/d5 is a bit vulnerable. This is offset by the fact that Black has
reasonable influence in the centre, as well as the bishop pair. If White swaps the
c-pawn, the b-pawn may become weak. If White swaps the major pieces, the
opposite-coloured bishop endgame is always drawn. Practice has shown that the
chances are equal.

12…Rb8

In combination with the rook moves that follow, the standard manoeuvre to
create counterplay.

13.Na4 Rb4 14.b3 Rg4 15.Bd2

After this retreat Black develops an initiative. Correct seems 15.Bxf6 Qxf6
16.Qxf6 gxf6, with the aforementioned endgame. Less good is 15.Be3??, as
15…Rxa4 16.bxa4 Bg4 leaves the queen in a slightly awkward position.

15…Ne4! 16.Be3 Rg6 17.g3

Not, of course, 17.Bxa7?. After 17…Bxh2+ 18.Kxh2 Rh6+ 19.Kg1 Qh4 White
will have to give at least his queen.

17…f5 18.Bf4

And again pawn hunting is no good. After 18.Bxa7? f4 19.Bxe4 dxe4 20.Qxe4
fxg3 21.hxg3 Bxg3 22.Qxg6 White already had to give his queen to prevent
being mated at once, but after the strong 22…Bh2+! Black continues to attack.

18…Rg4!
A strong move that forces White to swap, after which the f-pawn can be
deployed.

19.Bxd6 Qxd6 20.Qg2

Black’s attack is already getting too strong. After the logical 20.Rad1 he strikes
at once 20…Ng5! 21.Qg2 f4 22.f3 fxg3! (this temporary rook sacrifice destroys
the white position) 23.fxg4 Bxg4, and there is no defence against the many
threats.

20…Rg6 21.Rad1 h5 22.Re3

After 22.c4 h4 23.cxd5 cxd5 24.Bxe4 fxe4 25.Nc3 hxg3 26.hxg3 Black also
strikes: 26…Rxf2! 27.Kxf2 Qf6+! 28.Kg1 Qxc3 29.Kh2 Rh6+ 30.Kg1 Qc5+
31.Qf2 Rh1+, winning the queen.

22…h4 23.Rf3 Ng5 24.Re3 f4 25.Ree1 Bh3

White resigned.

SO 4.4

Kasparov

Ivanchuk

Amsterdam 1994
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5
8.c4 Ba6 9.b3 g6 10.Ba3 Qg5

Black has two other possibilities here: 10…Qh4 is regarded as dubious in view
of the following tactical variation (a warning would not go amiss here: long
analyses tend to offer plenty scope for improvement): 11.Bb2 (11.Bxf8 is
followed by the intermediate move 11…Qd4!) 11…Bb4+ 12.Kd1 Nf4 13.Qe4
Qxf2 14.Bd4 Qh4 15.Kc2 Qh6 (the only way to prevent g3) 16.a3 Be7 17.e6 0-0
18.exd7 Ne6 19.Bc3 Rad8 20.Qe5 Qg7 21.Qa5 Nd4+ 22.Kb2 Rb8 23.Nd2 Bf6
24.Rc1, and according to an analysis by Wells, White is better because the
tactical tricks are exhausted and White has the better structure,.

Quite playable is 10…d6 11.exd6 Qxe2+ 12.Bxe2 Bg7 13.cxd5 Bxe2 14.Kxe2
Bxa1 15.Rc1 0-0-0 16.Rxc6 Rd7, with an interesting endgame.

11.g3

Wells’s suggestion to swap the bishops first seems plausible enough to me. After
11.Bxf8 Kxf8? (11…Qc1+ 12.Qd1 Qb2 13.Bg7 Rg8 14.Nd2 loses, but 11…
Rxf8, intending to meet 12.Nd2 with 12…0-0-0, with dangerous counter-
chances, seems much better) 12.Nd2, followed by 13.Nf3, White is far better.

11…Nc3!
A nice move that yields the bishop pair.

12.Nxc3

Interesting is 12.h4 Nxe2 13.hxg5 Nd4 14.Bxf8 Kxf8 15.Na3 Nf3+ 16.Ke2 Nxe5
17.f4 Ng4 18.Bh3, and now Black seems to be in trouble; but after 18…Re8+!
19.Kf3 h5 20.gxh6ep Nf6 it is not clear who is better.

12…Bxa3 13.Ne4

After 13.f4 Qe7 14.Bg2 0-0 15.0-0 f6 Black is fine.

13…Qe7 14.Nf6+ Kf8 15.Bg2 Bb4+ 16.Kf1 Rd8 17.Qb2 Ba3 18.Qc3 Bb4

A not-so-common theme, a perpetual attack on the queen.

19.Qb2 Ba3 20.Qc3 Bb4

Draw.

SO 4.4

Kotsur

Frolov

Tomsk 1997
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5
8.c4 Ba6 9.b3 Qh4

This move was once regarded as the best reply to White’s ninth move. Black
activates both the queen and the black bishop and tries to exploit White’s lack of
development.

10.a3!

White invests another tempo to conquer the important square b4! Less good is
10.g3?? Qd4 11.Bb2, and after 11…Bb4+ White might as well resign.

Quite playable is 10.Bb2 Bb4+ 11.Kd1 (better than 11.Nd2, as Black plays 11…
Nc3, followed by 12…Ne4, after which White has problems) 11…Nf4 12.Qe4,
and now Black has to choose between 12…0-0 13.g3 Qh5+ 14.Kc2 Ne6 15.Be2,
after which White is slightly better, and the long and forced variation after 12…
Qxf2 13.Bd4 Qh4 14.c5 Qh5+ 15.g4 Qxg4+ 16.Kc2 Be2 17.Bxe2 Qxe2+
18.Qxe2 Nxe2 19.Bf2 0-0 20.a3 Bxc5 21.Bxc5 Rfe8 22.Nc3 Rxe5, when he has
no fewer than four pawns for the piece. But the pawn formation is such that both
players have chances.

10…Bc5 11.g3 Bxf2+ 12.Qxf2 Qe4+ 13.Kd1 Qxh1 14.Nd2

This is the key position. Black has won material but his queen is in trouble.
What price will he have to pay for extricating it?

14…Nc3+

The only way to extricate himself with a material plus. He could try to give
knight d5 and be left with rook plus two pawns against two pieces. But how is
Black to realize this?

After 14…0-0 White does not take on d5, but he plays 15.Kc2 f5 16.Bb2 f4
17.cxd5 Bxf1 18.Rxf1 Qxd5 19.gxf4, and now White has both an attack and a
material plus. 14…f6 is new and tries to speed up the extricating process:
15.cxd5 (15.e6!? may be the way to keep all files closed and then win the queen
back) 15…fxe5 16.Qg2 Qxg2 17.Bxg2 cxd5 is not so clear.

15.Kc2 Ne4 16.Nxe4 Qxe4+ 17.Bd3 Qg4

Black has another queen move that may be better. I have failed to find a simple
refutation, but I believe that deep analysis will reveal it. White has several
attacking plans and all pieces are involved.

17…Qxe5 18.Bb2 Qg5 19.h4 Qh6 20.Re1+ (interesting is 20.Qc5 to keep the
king from f8 and try and make life difficult for the a6 bishop) 20…Kf8 21.Rf1
(21.Qf5, to go to d7 and a5 is also worth looking into) 21…Qe6 22.Qc5+ Qd6
(less good is 22…d6? – White wins after 23.Qxc6 Qc8 24.Qf3 Qe8 25.h5! Rg8
26.Bxh7, and the attack strikes home) 23.Qg5 Rg8 24.Bxh7 Qe7 25.Qxe7+ Kxe7
26.Bxg8 Rxg8 27.Re1+ Kd8 28.Re5. This position is better alright, but I still
think it’s a draw.

18.Bf5 Qh5 19.h4! f6 20.exf6 0-0?!

After 20…gxf6 White must play much more accurately to win the point. The
plan in the game still works: 21.Bb2 (less clear is 21.Qe1+ Kd8 22.g4 Qf7
23.Qa5 Bc8, and the black defences have not been breached yet) 21…0-0 22.g4
Qf7 23.Rg1 Rab8 24.Qf4!! (the only move that removes both 24…Rxb3 and
24…Bxc4) 24…Rfe8 25.Bd3!, and White takes square e2, with an irresistible
attack.
21.g4 Qe8 22.Bb2 gxf6 23.Rg1 h6 24.g5 fxg5 25.Qd4 Qe7 26.Qh8+

Black resigned.

SO 4.4

Rublevsky

Tseshkovsky

Krasnoyarsk 2003

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5
8.c4 Ba6 9.b3 g6

Because of the strength of White’s 10th move, f4, 9…g5 is rapidly gaining
popularity. Besides preventing f4, this also creates a foothold for the knight on
f4. At present, White can choose from three possibilities: 10.Ba3 (there is now a
consensus that the liquidation after 10.g3 Bg7 11.Bb2 0-0-0 12.Bg2 Rde8 13.0-0
Bxe5 14.Qxe5 Qxe5 15.Bxe5 Rxe5 16.cxd5 Bxf1 17.Kxf1 cxd5 results in a
balanced endgame; 10.h4, which immediately puts pressure on g5, has not
crystallized out yet and leads to lively games) 10…d6 11.exd6 Qxe2+ 12.Bxe2
Bg7 13.cxd5 Bxe2 14.Kxe2 Bxa1 15.Rc1 0-0-0 16.Rxc6 Rd7 is known from
Kasparov-Anand, and here, too, the chances are roughly equal.

10.f4 f6 11.exf6

The quiet way. 11.Ba3 Qf7 12.Qd2 Nb6 13.c5 Bxf1 14.cxb6 led to
pandemonium in Kasparov-Karpov, Tilburg 1991.
11…Qxe2+ 12.Bxe2 Bb4+ 13.Bd2 Bxd2+ 14.Nxd2 Nxf4 15.Rf1!

Speed is more important than a pawn; after 15.g3 Nxe2 16.Kxe2 Kf7 17.Ne4 d5
18.Nc5 Bc8 19.Rhf1 Bf5 the position is equal.

15…Nxg2+ 16.Kf2

The start of a remarkable king march.

16…Nf4 17.Bg4 0-0-0?

This cannot be good. Black needs the king to stop the f-pawn. Although I think
that White is better regardless, in view of the dangerous pawn on f6 and his
better development, 17…h5 18.Kg3 Nd3 19.Be2 h4+ 20.Kh3 Ne5 is a far better
attempt to turn the tide.

18.Kg3 Nd3 19.Nf3 Rhe8 20.Rad1 Re3

21.Kh4!

With the king supporting the passed pawn, the outcome is clear.

21…Rf8

21…h6, to keep the king from g5, loses after 22.Rxd3 Rxd3 23.Ne5, and the f-
pawn decides.

22.Kg5 c5 23.Bxd7+ Kb8 24.Rxd3 Rxd3 25.Ne5 Rd8 26.f7

Black resigned.

SO 4.4

Sanz

Fernandez

Spain 1984

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Nd5 7.Qe2 Qe7
8.c4 Ba6

A standard position in the Scotch. Black develops his pieces very quickly,
hoping to lay siege to pawn e5 or attack the c4 pawn with d5. He has problems,
however, with the a6 bishop, which is doomed to passivity. Also, the d5 knight is
very much centralized now (although it will eventually have to go), and White’s
pawn structure is slightly better than Black’s. For this reason you often see an
early tactical skirmish that determines who is better very quickly.

9.Nd2 0-0-0

9…Nb4 is also possible, with a little pinprick on c2. After 10.Nf3 c5 both the
bishop and the knight have a nice square.

10.Qe4 Nb6 11.c5?!

This action backfires. 11.b3 is a reliable alternative.

11…Bxf1 12.cxb6 Ba6 13.bxc7

Karpov played a very nice game with Black against Timman in 1984: 13.bxa7
Kb7 14.Nb3 f6 15.f4 fxe5 16.fxe5 Re8 17.Bf4 Qh4+! 18.g3 Qh5 (the white king
is unable to castle and is subjected to a furious barrage) 19.Rc1 Ka8 20.h4 d5
21.Qe3 g5! (the bishop is led away from e5) 22.Bxg5 Bb4+ 23.Kf2 (23.Nd2 is
met by 23…Rxe5 24.Qxe5 Re8, and Black wins) 23…Rhf8+ 24.Kg2 Rxe5
25.Qxe5 Qf3+ 26.Kh2 Qf2+, and White resigned because he will soon be mated.

13…Re8 14.f4 Qb4! 15.Qxb4 Bxb4 16.Kf2

Safer is 16.Kd1, but it is already clear that the opening is an utter failure. Black
has two bishops and the better development.

16…f6 17.Nf3 Rhf8 18.Kg3 g5!

Of course: all files are opened to launch the attack.

19.exf6 gxf4+ 20.Bxf4 Rxf6 21.Ne5

Black was threatening 21…Rg8+, winning a piece.

21…Be2 22.Nf3 Rg6+ 23.Kh3

After 23.Kf2 Bc5+ it is finished at once.

23…Rf8 24.a3 Ba5 25.Bg3 Rf5 26.Kh4 Bxc7

A beautiful move is 26…Bd2!, winning at once. After 27.Nxd2 Rh5+ White is

mated. The threat is 27…Rh6+ 28.Kg4 Rg5, also with mate.

27.Bxc7 Kxc7 28.Rhg1 Rf4+ 29.Kh3 Bc4 30.Ne5 Be6+ 31.g4 Rg5 32.Rae1 d6
33.Nxc6 Rh5+

White resigned.

SO 4.5

Azmaiparashvili

Hector

San Sebastian 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Be2 Qxe4 7.Nb5 Nf6?!

Black should go for a different move order. 7…Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Kd8 9.0-0 Nf6
leads to the same position as in the game, without White being able to capture on
c7. Besides, Black now has alternatives like 9…d6 and 9…Nge7, which do not,
however, change the character of the position.

8.0-0

I would go for the greedy 8.Nxc7+ Kd8 9.Nxa8 Qxg2 10.Bf3 Re8+ 11.Be3, after
which White is no less than a rook up. All he has left to do is castle queenside,
and if the only price he has to pay is losing the a8 knight, he would still be
winning.
8…Bxc3 9.bxc3 Kd8
An important position. Black has won a pawn, his pawn structure is still intact
and there is no simple target in sight. If he manages to swap a few pieces, he will
have excellent prospects. Yet I would never dare to play the black pieces here.
White has two bishops, with the c1 one especially prone to inflict damage.

It will be a long time before the black king will be safe. Each black pawn move
will weaken his king position and invite sacrifices. Besides, Black is living on a
knife edge, whereas White has some more margin for error.

10.Be3 Re8

According to Azmaiparashvili, 10…a6 11.Bf3 Qe5 12.Nd4 is also good for

White.

11.Re1 Qd5

Now it is too late to chase the knight away. 11…a6 is met by 12.Nd6 cxd6
13.Bf3 Qe6 14.Bb6+ Ke7 15.Rxe6+ dxe6, and White is winning.

12.Qc1!

A strong move. Swapping queens is out of the question, of course, and with the
following manoeuvre the pressure on the black position is increased.

12…Qf5 13.Qa3 d6 14.Rad1 Re7 15.c4

With the c-pawn ready to start breaking, the threats are starting to take definite
shape.

15…Be6 16.Bf3

White was facing a pleasant choice: attacking with 16.c5 d5 17.c4 is equally
good.

16…Rd7 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Nd4 Qh5 19.Bg5!

Far stronger than 19.Nxc6+ Ke8, and Black is still alive.

19…c5
Relatively best was accepting the pseudo-sacrifice. After 19…Qxg5 20.Rxe6
Qc5 21.Qa6 Qxd4 22.Rxd4 fxe6 23.Qb7! Rc8 24.Qxa7 White will still win, of
course, in view of the passed pawn on the a-file.

20.Bxf6+ gxf6 21.Nc6+ Ke8 22.Qb2 Qh4 23.Qb7 Rad8 24.Rd3!

The switch to the g-file decides the game, e.g. 24…Qxc4 25.Rg3 Kf8 26.Nxd8
Rxd8 27.Qxc7, and Black cannot cover both d8 and d6 and the bottom rank, so
his position falls apart.

Black resigned.

SO 4.5

Karjakin

Malinin

Sudak 2002

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.Nf3 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4

This active queen move tries to exploit the temporary weakening of square e4.
Black usually wins a pawn, but he will have to pay the price.

5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Be2 Nf6 7.0-0 Bxc3 8.Nf5!

Correct. White directs his pieces towards the black king with tempo.

8…Qxe4 9.Bd3 Qg4

After 9…Qd5 White also strikes with the standard attack 10.Nxg7+! Kf8 11.Bh6
Be5 – Black must defend c7 – 12.Re1! (threatening 13.Nh5+ Kg8 14.Nxf6+
Bxf6 15.Re8 mate) 12…Rg8 13.c4 Qa5 14.Nh5+ Ke7 15.Nxf6 Kxf6 16.Qh5 d6
17.Qh4+ Ke6 18.f4, and White wins his piece back without interrupting his
attack.

10.f3 Qa4

After the intermediate check 10…Bd4+ 11.Kh1 Black has no decent square for
the queen.

11.bxc3 0-0
More stubborn is 11…Kf8, after which taking on g7 is no longer correct, as
Black has the flight square f8. Yet White is far better after 12.Qe1! Ne8 13.Qg3
d6 14.Nxg7 Rg8 15.Bh6 Rxg7 16.Rae1 Ne5 17.f4, as in Kasimdzhanov-
Vladimirov, Namangan 2000.

12.Nxg7!

A beautiful magnet combination.

12…Kxg7 13.Bh6+ Kxh6

Retreating won’t work either: 13…Kg8 14.Qd2 Qa5 (after 14…Qh4 White wins
back his piece with 15.Bg5 Qh5 16.Bxf6) 15.Bxf8 Kxf8 16.Qh6+, and it is
curtains.

14.Qd2+ Kh5 15.g4+ Nxg4 16.fxg4+ Qxg4+ 17.Kh1 d6 18.Rf6

18.Be2 wins as well, but this is quickest.

18…Qg5 19.Be2+ Bg4 20.Bxg4+

Black resigned.

SO 4.7

Hadzidakis

Miles

Chania 1997
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.Nf3 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bb4+

An interesting idea. White provokes c3, taking this square away from the white
knight. The d4 knight is now covered for free, of course.

5.c3 Bc5 6.Be3 Bb6 7.Bc4

White has a wide choice. 7.Nf5 seems to yield him a slight plus after 7…Bxe3
8.Nxe3 Nf6 9.f3, with a strong grip on the centre. 7.Qg4 is the move of the
Godfather of the Scotch, Kasparov, who easily beat Unzicker after 7…Qf6
8.Qg3 Nxd4 9.Bxd4 Bxd4 10.cxd4 Qxd4 11.Nc3.

7…Ne5 8.Be2 Nf6 9.f4 Nc6 10.Bf3

Necessary preparation, as Black has an annoying attack on the e3 bishop after

10.e5 Nd5.

10…d6 11.0-0

After 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxb6 axb6 13.e5 Nd5 14.Bxd5 cxd5 15.Qxd5 White
wins a pawn, but 15…Ra5! yields Black sufficient counterplay.

11…0-0 12.Bf2

Now the black pieces very quickly find good positions. More logical seems
12.Nd2, to reinforce the centre.

12…Ne7 13.c4 Ng6 14.g3 Bh3 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Kh1?

Panic. White was afraid to lose his black bishop and overlooked what was
coming. Correct was 16.Nc3 Ng4 17.Nd5 Nxf2 18.Nxb6 axb6 19.Kxf2, with an
equal position.
16…Ne5! 17.Bg2

After 17.Bg1 Nxf3 18.Qxf3 the light squares have been weakened too much.

17…Nxc4 18.Qc2 Ng4 19.Bg1 Nce3!

After this beautiful interposition the white defences are disrupted even more.

20.Rxe3 Bxg2+ 21.Kxg2 Bxd4 22.Rd3 Bxg1 23.Kxg1 Rae8 24.Nc3 Qc6
25.Re1 f5 26.Qg2 fxe4 27.Rxe4 Qc5+ 28.Kf1 Rxe4

White resigned. He is overloaded: if he takes with the queen, he is mated on f2,

and if he takes with the knight, the black queen penetrates with devastating force
on c1.

SO 5.4

Brauneder

Wald

Vienna 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3 Qf6 6.Nb5 Bxe3 7.fxe3
This variation was introduced by Blumenfeld in 1905. I assume that people
looked rather askance at the pawn duo on e3 and e4, but some initial successes
surely changed their opinion. White’s compensation consists of open f- and d-
files and a knight on b5, giving White lasting pressure in the centre. If Black is
not overrun at once, he can look forward to an open battle.

7…Qd8

The check 7…Qh4+ is quite playable as well, provided Black refrains from
taking the pawn on e4, which allows White to develop very rapidly: 8.g3 Qxe4?!
(better is 8…Qd8 9.Qg4 g5!? – a nice idea: Black takes square f4 and is ready to
play …d6 and …Ne5. The game Ponomariov-Godena, Plovdiv 2003, ended in a
draw after an interesting fight. 9…g6 is normal, with similar ideas as the game)
9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8 Qxh1 11.Qd6! (this move, which both defends g3 and
attacks via square c7, is the problem – White is far better) 11…Nf6 12.Nd2,
followed by castling queenside. But I cannot recommend the pseudo-active
move 7…Qe5?!: after both 8.À1a3, and 8.Àd2 Black must play a king move,
which was not really the plan, of course. No good at all is taking on b2: 7…
Qxb2 8.À1c3 Qb4 9.Àxc7+ Kd8 10.Qd2, and Black will soon expire.

8.Qg4 g6 9.Qf4 d6 10.Bc4 Qe7?

Occupying the natural square for the queen fails tactically. After 10…Ne5 11.0-0
Qd7 Black gets time to chase the knight away from b5, with roughly equal play.

11.0-0 Ne5 12.N1c3 c6

12…Nxc4 13.Nd5 Qd7 14.Nbxc7+ Kf8 15.Nxa8 leaves no hope either.

13.Bxf7+ Kd7 14.Nxd6 Kxd6 15.Rad1+ Kc5

After 15…Kc7 White strikes with 16.Rd5! g5 17.Qg3.

16.Nd5 g5 17.Qg3 Qxf7 18.Rxf7 Nxf7 19.b4+ Kb5 20.Nc7+ Ka4 21.e5 c5
22.bxc5

Black resigned.
SO 5.6

Nedev

Peev

Vrbas 1994

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qf6 5.Be3 Bc5 6.c3 Nge7 7.Bc4

Preventing d5 for the moment. If Black chases the bishop, it will modestly
retreat to e2. But then the advance of the f-pawn yields him a tempo.

7…0-0 8.0-0 d6?!

Black would prefer to play d7-d5 at once in order to free himself, and to do this
he has two different plans. First of all 8…Bb6, a very clever move that seems to
add little, except that it covers his bishop. If White now plays the careless 9.Kh1
(White usually plays 9.Na3 here, after which Black refrains from d5 and plays
d6 – being satisfied with the slightly awkward position of the outside knight and
the potentially weak pawn on e4) then the true idea is revealed: 9…Rd8! 10.Qh5
h6 11.Nd2 d5 12.exd5 Nxd4 13.cxd4 Bf5, and Black had solved his opening
problems in Kasparov-Kamsky, Tilburg 1991. Well then, I hear you thinking,
why not play 8…Rd8 at once? Because this costs a pawn after the standard trick
9.Nxc6 Qxc6 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qh5+. The other plan is 8…Ne5 9.Be2 d5 (the
nuance 9…Qg6 10.Nd2, and only now 10…d5, is probably the best execution of
the plan with …Ne5 – after 11.f4 N5c6 12.e5 a complicated position arises)
10.f4 N5c6 11.e5, and here White has slightly more space, but Black has strong
control of the white squares.
9.Kh1

White is very ambitious; he could already have the slightly better position after
9.Nxc6 Nxc6 10.Bxc5 dxc5.

9…Kh8?

This move adds nothing to the black position. The plan with …Ne5 and …Qg6
would still be better.

10.f4 Qg6 11.f5!

Giving away square e5, but more importantly, with the black position squashed,
White can launch an immediate king attack.

11…Qf6 12.Qh5 h6 13.Nd2 Nxd4

Consistent but no good. Black’s position may already be beyond saving; 13…
Ne5, for example, loses after 14.g4! Nxc4 15.Nxc4 Nc6 16.g5 Qe7 17.Nd2!, and
Black is powerless against the many threats.

14.cxd4 Bxd4 15.e5!

The point of the white play.

15…Qxe5

After 15…dxe5 16.Ne4 Qc6 17.f6 Nf5 18.Rxf5 Bxf5 19.Bxh6 Black is mated,
while the queen sacrifice 15…Bxe5 16.Ne4 Nxf5 17.Nxf6 Nxe3 is not enough
after 18.Bd3.

16.Bxh6! Kg8

Taking back with 16…gxh6 17.Qxh6+ Kg8 is not really an option after 18.f6, of
course.

17.Rae1 Qc5 18.Rxe7 d5 19.f6 Bxf6 20.Rxf6 gxf6 21.Rxf7

Black resigned.

SO 5.6

Rodrigues

Damaso
Lisbon 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3 Qf6 6.c3

The classical main line of the Scotch. White continues to dominate the centre,
although he will find it hard to develop the b1 knight, as the natural square c3 is
unavailable and developing it to d2 costs a pawn.

6…Nge7 7.Bc4

Played to prevent d5.

7…d5!?

Quite a strange move, and virtually Damasco’s private variation; but he has a
perfect score with it. Black usually plays 7…Ne5, 7…b6 or 7…0-0, all of them
moves that lead to complicated unorthodox positions with chances on both sides.

8.exd5

8.Bxd5 has also been played, and it’s true that after 8…Nxd5 9.exd5 Ne5 10.Nf3
Bd6?! (here Black misses a fantastic chance with 10…Bg4! 11.Bxc5 0-0-0!!, and
White had better start worrying) 11.Nxe5 Bxe5 White is slightly better.

8…Ne5

A nice find by Black. Before this 8…Nxd4 9.Bxd4 Bxd4 10.Qxd4 Qxd4 11.cxd4
Nf5 was played, trying to force a draw.

9.Bb5+ c6 10.dxc6 0-0!?

I think Black is going too far here. 10…bxc6 11.Be2 Nd5 seems to me to yield
excellent compensation.

11.Nc2?
Funny. White was probably intimidated by earlier games of the Portuguese and
therefore wanted to prevent …Nd5. Far better is 11.0-0 Nd5 12.Nd2 (and not
12.Nc2? Nxe3 13.Nxe3 Qh6 14.cxb7 Bxb7 15.Nf5 Qg5 16.Ng3 Ng4 17.Be2
Nxh2! 18.Kxh2 Qh4+ 19.Kg1 Qxg3 20.Bf3 Rad8, and Black won in Alho-
Damaso; or 12.Re1? Nxe3 13.Rxe3 Ng4 14.Rf3 Qe5 15.Rg3 Bxd4, and White
could resign in Borrego-Damaso) 12…Nxe3 (recapturing on c6 with 12…bxc6
13.Bxc6 Nxc6 14.Ne4 Qg6 15.Nxc5 Bg4 16.Qb1 f5 yields insufficient
compensation) 13.cxb7! Bxb7 14.fxe3 Qh6 15.Qe2, and White seems to have
things well under control.

11…Bg4!
12.Be2

After 12.f3 Nxf3+! 13.gxf3 Bxf3 the white queen is in deep trouble.

12…Bxe3 13.Nxe3 Rad8 14.Qc2 Bxe2 15.Kxe2 Nd3 16.Kf1 Nxc6

Black has played very energetically and is well ahead in development. Although
White’s position has not been cracked yet, he is finding it difficult to continue
his development. Black is better.

17.Na3 Rfe8 18.Kg1 Nce5 19.Nac4?

A blunder. Correct was 19.h4 in order to involve the h1 rook.

19…Nxc4 20.Nxc4 Ne1!

Black has found White’s Achilles’ heel.

21.Qa4 Qg5 22.g3 Qd5

White resigned.

SO 5.9

Djurovic

Rajic

Novi Sad 1988

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nb3

Not as popular as 5.Be3 and 5.Nxc6, but certainly playable. White gains some
time by harassing the black bishop and keeps his pawn formation intact.

5…Bb6 6.a4 Qf6

Black is playing with fire. This queen sortie is an open invitation for White to
mobilize his rooks via a4 and h3. Yet it’s understandable that not everyone feels
like playing the quiet position arising after 6…a6 7.Nc3 d6 8.Nd5 Ba7 9.Be3
Bxe3 10.Nxe3 Nf6 11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 Re8 13.f3. The position is roughly equal,
but Black does not have a simple plan. I suggest a formation with Be6, Nd7, and
then putting the black queen on a7, after which all pieces are deployed
harmoniously.

7.Qe2 a6 8.Nc3 Nge7 9.Nd5 Nxd5 10.exd5+ Ne7 11.a5 Ba7 12.h4
12…h6

Absolutely the only move. Practice has shown that the complications after 12…
d6? 13.Ra4! 0-0 14.Rf4 Bf5 15.g4 Rae8 16.gxf5 Nxd5 17.Re4 Bxf2+ 18.Kd1
favour White.

13.Bd2

How dangerous this variation is may be seen from the fact that White has two
other dangerous attacking attempts here: 13.Ra4 0-0 14.g4 Nxd5 15.g5 Qc6
(15…Qd6 may be Black’s best reply) 16.Rc4 Nc3 17.Rxc3 Qxh1 18.gxh6, with
the typical Scotch chaos that I would say is a lot jollier for White. 13.g4 prevents
Black from castling kingside and might well be the strongest of the three
possibilities.

13…0-0?

This timid reply gives White a free hand. Black should press ahead: 13…Qxb2!
14.Rh3 (threatening 15.Bc3, so Black has to keep robbing) 14…Qxc2 15.Rc1
Qf5. At the cost of two pawns White has activated all his pieces and the position
looks ready for demolition. But it looks worse than it is: 16.Bb4 (16.Rxc7 looks
logical, but Black simply plays 16…Kd8, and the e-file becomes available to the
black rook) 16…Bxf2+ 17.Kd1 d6 (17…Qxd5+ is less good: 18.Rd3 Qe6
19.Qxf2! Qg4+ 20.Kc2 d6 (the bishop is taboo in view of the queen being lost
after 20…Qxb4 21.Rd4 Qa3 22.Ra1 Qxa1 23.Nxa1) 21.Kb2, with good chances
of a successful attack) 18.Rxc7 Qb1+ 19.Nc1 Bd7 20.Rxd7! Kxd7 21.Bd2!, and
the double threat of 22.Qxf2 and 22.Rb3 guarantees White at least sufficient
compensation.

14.Bc3 Qd6 15.0-0-0 Nxd5

This fails, but does Black have any better?

16.Rxd5! Qxd5 17.Qg4 g6 18.Qf4 Kh7 19.Bd3 Qxg2

19…Qd6 is the most stubborn reply, but it’s clear that White is far better after
20.Be5 Qe6 21.h5 f5 22.hxg6+ Qxg6 23.Bxc7.
20.Qf6 Qxh1+ 21.Kd2 Be3+

A last trick.

22.fxe3

22.Kxe3? Re8+ 23.Kf4 Qh2+, with perpetual check, and after 22.Ke2?? Black
has the venomous 22…Bd4!, with a large advantage.

22…Qh2+ 23.Kd1 Qh1+ 24.Kd2 Qh2+ 25.Kc1 Qg1+ 26.Bf1 Qxe3+ 27.Kb1
Qxc3

The bishop that caused so much grief is finally gone.

28.bxc3 d6 29.Nd4 Bg4 30.Bc4 c5 31.Bxf7

Black resigned.

SO 5.14

Svidler

Milov

Moscow 2001

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nxc6 Qf6 6.Qd2 bxc6

A somewhat neglected move, but just as logical, I think, as 6…dxc6. Doesn’t the
old adage go: always capture towards the centre? A second advantage is that this
is a relatively unknown position, giving the players ample scope to come up with
something themselves.

7.Bd3 Ne7 8.Nc3 d6?!

A slight inaccuracy; Black would be better of castling: 8…0-0 9.0-0 Ng6 10.Kh1
Ne5 11.Be2 d6 12.Na4 Bb6, and White is only marginally better, if at all.

9.0-0 Bb6?!

I assume that Milov had realised by now that castling has unpleasant
consequences – 9…0-0? 10.e5 Qe6 (after 10…Qxe5? 11.Re1 Qf6 12.Ne4 Black
already loses a piece, while after 10…Qh4 he will shed a pawn after 11.Ne4 Bb6
12.exd6) 11.exd6 Bxd6, and White is much better – and decided to anticipate on
Na4. Yet I believe that 9…Ng6 10.Na4 Bb6 11.Nxb6 axb6 is better, as the
bishop pair is still badly hampered by the pawn fortress on the queenside.

10.Kh1 Qh4 11.f4 f5 12.b3 fxe4 13.Nxe4 0-0 14.Bb2 Bg4?!

Preparing …Nf5, but the modest 14…Bf5 was preferable: 15.Rae1 Rae8 16.c4,
and now White is better in view of his great influence in the centre and his
superior pawn structure. After the desired 14…Nf5?!, with the simple idea of d6-
d5 and mate on g3, White had prepared 15.Rf3, which guards the third rank and
may cause problems for the queen on h4.
15.Ng5!

Opening the e-file, threatening to capture on h7 and dealing with Black’s main
threat.

15…Nf5 16.Bxf5 Rxf5

After 16…Bxf5 17.Qc3 Qh6 18.Qxc6 White has won a pawn without
compensation.

17.Qc3 Qh6 18.Rae1

After the greedy 18.Qxc6 Black plays 18…Raf8, after which he threatens the
annoying 19…Qxg5.

18…Raf8

The surprising 18…Rc5 is met by 19.Qg3 Rxc2 20.Qxg4 Rxb2 21.Re6 g6

22.Re7, and White wins quickly.

19.h3!

A necessary escape hatch with an attack on the bishop.

19…Be2 20.Rxe2 Rxg5 21.Re7 d5 22.Rfe1 Rg6 23.R1e6

White could strike harder here: 23.f5! Rgf6 24.Qg3 Bc5 25.Bxf6 Qxf6 26.Re8
yields a winning position.

23…Rgf6 24.Rxf6 Rxf6 25.Qe5 d4

Black’s last chance was 25…Bc5 26.Rxc7 Bf8, after which White has to play
accurately to win.

26.Ba3!

Black’s Achilles’ heel is exposed.

26…Qh4 27.Re8+ Kf7 28.Rf8+ Kg6 29.f5+

Black resigned.

SO 5.16

Kristjansson

Azarov

Oropesa del Mar 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nxc6 Qf6 6.Qd2 dxc6

Black is aiming for active play. His pieces can be developed rapidly and he
would prefer to castle queenside and then launch an attack. White has two plans,
in fact: swapping all the pieces and then winning the pawn ending, or central
expansion with e5, if possible followed by f5.

7.Nc3 Be6

The richness of this position can be gauged from the number of moves Black can
play: 7…Bd4, 7…Ne7, 7…Nh6, 7…Qe7 and 7…Bd7 are all playable.

8.Na4

Introduced by Kasparov in his match against Short in 1993, and generally

imitated afterwards. This paradoxical knight move tries to hamper Black’s
development. White used to play 8.Bd3 here, after which Black could castle
queenside. White is also trying to chase the bishop from the active diagonal.
8…Bd6

The main line continues with 8…Rd8 9.Bd3 (certainly not 9.Qf4?, as this runs
into 9…Bxf2+ 10.Kxf2 Qd4+, and Black wins a pawn) 9…Bd4 10.0-0, with a
complicated position.

9.f4

More common is 9.Qe3 Nh6 10.h3 Qe7 11.Bd3 f6, and Black is excellently
prepared to defend against the advance e4-e5; but he doesn’t really have an
active plan.

9…Nh6 10.h3

Not, of course, 10.e5 Bxe5 11.fxe5 Qh4+, and Black wins back the piece.

10…0-0-0 11.Qf2 Rhe8!

Quite correct. Black must strike before White has completed his development.
An automatic move like 11…Kb8 is punished with 12.Be3!, after which White
threatens both e5 and capturing on a7.

12.Bd3

12.e5? is asking for trouble, of course, and is severely punished with 12…Bxe5
13.fxe5 Rd1+ 14.Ke2 Bc4+, winning the queen.

12…Bf5 13.0-0

After 13.Nc3 White also has problems with the pawn on e4: 13…Bb4 14.0-0
Bxc3 15.bxc3 Bxe4 16.Qxa7 Bxd3 17.cxd3 Qxc3 18.Be3 b6, and White has no
attack left and is in a very sorry state.

13…Bxe4 14.Qxa7 Bxd3 15.cxd3 Nf5 16.Nc3

After 16.Qa8+? Kd7 17.Qxb7 Qd4+ White loses the a4 knight.

16…Ng3!

Well spotted. The endgame after 16…Qd4+ 17.Qxd4 Nxd4 is very good, but
now the black attack is unstoppable.
17.Rf3 Ne2+ 18.Nxe2 Rxe2 19.Rf2 Rde8 20.Qa8+

20.Rxe2 Rxe2 21.Kf1 is met by the power move 21…Qe7!, and White will have
to resign after 22.Bd2 Bc5.

20…Kd7 21.Qa7 b6 22.Rxe2 Rxe2 23.Qa4 Qg6

White resigned.

SO 6.7

Ljubojevic

Smejkal

Wijk aan Zee 1972

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3

Declining the gambit with 4…d5 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.cxd4 is an important option for
Black.

5.Bc4

The spirit of times past. A pawn more or less is of no consequence.

5…d6
Although there is nothing wrong objectively with taking the second pawn, most
black players would be afraid to give White too great a lead in development.

6.Nxc3

Transposition of moves has led us to the Göring Gambit. Another war-horse,

Frank Marshall, played 6.Qb3 Qd7 7.Qxc3?! here, and after 7…d5 he coolly
sacrificed his queen with 8.exd5 Bb4 9.dxc6 Bxc3+ 10.Nxc3. White has not
enough compensation, of course, but it’s nice to play.

6…Nf6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.Ng5 Ne5 9.Bb5 c6 10.f4 Neg4

Taking on b5 at once is also possible. After 10…cxb5 11.fxe5 dxe5 12.Be3 a5

13.0-0 a4 14.Qxb5 Bd6 White has reasonable compensation.

11.h3

I think White is better off hanging on to his bishop: 11.Be2 h6 12.Nf3 d5 13.h3!
dxe4 (13…d4 is less good: 14.Nd1 Ne3 15.Nxe3 dxe3 16.Ne5 Qe7 17.Bc4
yields White the better position) 14.Ng1 Bc5 15.hxg4 Qd4, and now 16.Nd1 or
16.Nh3, in both cases with a position that is hard to assess.

11…cxb5 12.hxg4 b4 13.Nd5 b6!

A strong move. The development of the bishop puts White under pressure. After
13…Nxd5 14.Qxd5 h6 15.f5 Rg8 16.Nf3 Qc6 White has sufficient
compensation.

14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Rxh7 Rxh7 16.Nxh7 Be7 17.g5

White fights hard to return the knight to the battlefield.

17…fxg5 18.f5 Qc6 19.Qxb4 f6!

Otherwise White plays f6 himself, and the knight is back.

20.Qd4 Kf7

20…Bb7 21.Nxf6+ Bxf6 22.Qxf6 Qxe4+ 23.Kd1 Qg4+! is probably even better.

21.Be3 Bb7 22.Rc1 Qxe4 23.Rc7 Rh8??

A horrific end to a fascinating fight. Less good is 23…Qxf5?! 24.Rxb7 Qxh7

25.Qd5+ Kf8 26.Rxe7 Qb1+ 27.Kf2 Qxb2+ 28.Kf3 Kxe7 29.Qb7+ Ke6
30.Qxa8, and White has the better chances. But the cool 23…Ke8! causes White
problems: 24.g4 Kd8 25.Rxb7 (25.Qxe4 Bxe4 26.Rc3 Bf3 27.Bxg5 Bxg4
28.Bxf6 Bxf5 29.Re3 Bxf6 30.Nxf6 Rc8 31.Re8+ Kc7 32.Re7+ Kb8 33.b4, and
here White has good hopes of reaching the safety of a draw) 25…Qxb7 26.Nxf6
Qh1+ 27.Kd2 Rc8 28.Nd5, and it is not totally clear whether Black has more
than a draw.

24.Qxf6+

Black resigned.
 A.C. van der Tak

Italian Game

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

IG 1.11

Mestel

Kuligowski

Groningen 1974

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.0-0

This is a harmless deviation from the theory, which mainly concerns itself with
4.d4 and 4.Ng5.

4…Nxe4 5.Qe2

Mestel has also ventured 5.Nc3 a few times, the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit.
After 5…Nxc3 6.dxc3 Black can give the pawn back with 6…Be7 or 6…h6
(7.Qd5), or he can try to keep it with 6…f6.
5…d5

5…Nd6 6.Nxe5 Be7 is also playable, with a roughly equal position.

6.Bb5 Bg4

6…f6 7.c4 Bg4 8.d4 is dangerous for Black, but 6…Bd6 is also playable, e.g.
7.c4 Be6 8.d4 or 7.d3 Nf6 8.Ne5 0-0, in both cases with chances on both sides.

7.Bxc6+

After 7.d3 Bxf3 8.gxf3 Nf6 9.Qxe5+ Be7 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Re1 the white pawn
chain has seriously been weakened, but the black king will not find it easy to
escape from the centre, according to Mestel.

7…bxc6 8.Qa6 Bxf3

The start of a nice combination, although it doesn’t yield more than a draw for
Black in the end.

A good alternative, therefore, was 8…Bd7 9.Nxe5 Bd6 or 9…Bc5. Risky, on the
other hand, is 8…f6 9.Qxc6+ Kf7 10.d4, as in Klip-Van Riemsdijk, Dieren 1990.

9.Qxc6+
9…Qd7!

Surprising and correct!

10.Qxa8+ Ke7 11.Qxa7

Bad is 11.gxf3? Ng5 12.Kh1 Qh3 13.Rg1 Qxf3+ 14.Rg2 Nh3!, and Black wins,
e.g. 15.Nc3 Nxf2+ 16.Kg1 Nh3+ 17.Kh1 Qf1+, and mate (Mestel).

11…Bxg2!

Black will have to settle for a draw, as 11…Qg4? fails to 12.Qa3+ and 13.Qxf3,
while 11…Ng5? 12.d4 Nh3+ won’t work either in view of 13.gxh3 Qxh3
14.Qxc7+ Ke8 15.Qxe5+, followed by 16.Qg3.

12.Kxg2

White shouldn’t strive for more either: 12.Re1? Qg4 13.Qxc7+ Kf6, and Black
wins.

12…Qg4+ 13.Kh1 Qf3+ 14.Kg1 Qg4+ 15.Kh1

Draw.

IG 2.1

Knorre

Chigorin

Saint Petersburg 1874

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0

That there are certain dangers attached to castling early in the Italian Opening
will become clear later.

4…d6

After 4…Nf6 would be well advised to cover the pawn with 5.d3. The pawn
sacrifice 5.d4 works well after 5…Bxd4! 6.Nxd4 exd4? 7.e5 d5 8.Bb5, but 6…
Nxd4 puts a spanner in the works.

5.d3

5.c3 Bg4 6.Qb3 Bxf3 7.Bxf7+ Kf8 leads to sharp play. Now White must be
careful, as 8.Bxg8 Rxg8 9.gxf3 Qg5+ 10.Kh1 Qh5 11.Qxb7 Qxf3+ 12.Kg1
Qg4+ 13.Kh1 Qxe4+ 14.Kg1 (14.f3? Qe2 loses at once) 14…Qg4+ 15.Kh1
Qf3+ 16.Kg1 Re8 ends badly. But 8.gxf3 Qg5+ 9.Kh1 Qf6 10.Bh5 Bb6 is no
less dangerous. Black is already threatening 11…g6 and 12…h5.

Those who want to avoid these complications can seek their salvation in 6.h3.

5…Nf6 6.Bg5

The pinning of the knight is the main motif of this game.

6…h6

Black immediately forces the bishop to show its hand. With 6…Bg4 Black can
set up a counterpin. In Smith-Derrickson, Philadelphia 1860, this led to a
beautiful miniature: 7.h3 h5 8.hxg4 (quieter natures play 8.Nbd2 here) 8…hxg4
9.Nh2 g3 10.Nf3?! (10.Ng4 Nxg4 11.Qxg4, in order to involve the queen in the
defence, looks more logical) 10…Ng4 (an exciting queen sac) 11.Bxd8? (this
leads straight into the abyss. Correct is 11.d4 to block the diagonal to f2, e.g.
11…gxf2+ 12.Rxf2 f6, and now 13.Bh4 avoids the trap 13.dxc5? Rh1+!) 11…
Bxf2+ 12.Rxf2 gxf2+ 13.Kf1 Rh1+ 14.Ke2 Rxd1 (White is lost and now allows
mate) 15.Nfd2 Nd4+! 16.Kxd1 Ne3+ 17.Kc1 Ne2 mate!
7.Bh4?

White is not taking into account the fact that Black hasn’t castled yet! This
careless retreat allows Black to launch a strong king attack. 7.Be3 was called for.

7…g5! 8.Bg3 h5!?

The sign for the attack. But he doesn’t have to sacrifice at all. After 8…Bg4
Black is fine. The g3 bishop is buried alive.

9.Nxg5 h4 10.Nxf7 hxg3 11.Nxd8

Who can withstand such temptation? Yet there is a lot to be said for 11.Nxh8. As
early as 1877, Chigorin gave the following winning line for Black: 11…Qe7
12.Nf7 Bxf2+ 13.Rxf2 gxf2+ 14.Kxf2 Ng4+ 15.Kg3 Qf6 16.Qf3 Qg7. White
would be better off playing 12.Bf7+ Kd8 13.hxg3.

11…Bg4
A beautiful position. White is a queen ahead, but he is facing formidable threats.

12.Qd2

When considerably ahead in material, the defender should always be prepared to

return some. But this is not so easy here. 12.Nxc6 Bxf2+! (12…Bxd1 13.d4!?)
13.Rxf2 gxf2+ 14.Kxf2 Bxd1 is good for Black, while 12.Nf7 fails to 12…
Rxh2!, and Black’s threats remain intact.

The complications after 12.Ne6 Bxd1 13.Rxd1 (13.Nxc5 gxh2+ 14.Kh1 Be2
15.Re1 Nd4 16.Ne6 Ng4 wins for Black) 13…gxf2+ 14.Kh1 Nh5!? 15.g4 Ng3+
16.Kg2 f1Q+ 17.Rxf1 Nxf1 are not good for White either, as 18.Nxc7+ Kd7
19.Nxa8 Ne3+ and 20…Nxc2 loses the a1 rook.

12…Nd4 13.Nc3??

And suddenly White overlooks Black’s main threat. The only move to keep alive
is 13.h3 Ne2+ 14.Qxe2 (14.Kh1?? Rxh3+ 15.gxh3 Bf3 is mate!) 14…Bxe2.

13…Nf3+! 14.gxf3 Bxf3

Now the mate along the h-file is unavoidable. White resigned.

IG 2.2

Marshall

Burn

Ostend 1905
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Kf1?!

Strictly speaking, this is not really a very good move, although to exploit it,
Black will have to know exactly how to reply.

7…Nxe4?!

Very risky! Black would have been better advised preventing the advance d4-d5
by playing …d5 himself: 7…d5! 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Nc3, and now 9…Be6! is his
safest option. Black is fine.

8.d5! Ne7 9.Qd4 Nf6 10.Bg5 Ng6 11.Nbd2 h6

In Bartmanski-Broch, correspondence game 1909/10, 11…Be7 was tried:

12.Re1 0-0 13.h4! d6 14.h5 Ne5 15.h6 Nxc4 16.Nxc4 Re8 17.hxg7, with good
play for White.

11…0-0 can be met strongly by 12.Ne4 Be7 13.d6 cxd6 14.Nxd6, and 11…Bxd2
won’t do either: 12.Nxd2 h6 (or 12…0-0 13.Ne4) 13.Re1+ Kf8 14.Bxf6 Qxf6
15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.d6, with advantage for White.

12.Re1+ Kf8 13.Bd3! Be7?!

According to Marshall, 13…Bxd2 14.Bxd2 d6 was relatively best, ‘although

Black’s prospects remain very bad’.

14.Bxg6 hxg5

After 14…fxg6 White has the winning 15.Ne5!, e.g. 15…Qe8 16.Qd3 hxg5
17.Nxg6+.
15.Ne5! fxg6

There is nothing better.

16.Nxg6+ Kf7 17.Rxe7+ Kxg6 18.Qd3+ Kh6 19.h4! g4

Or 19…Qxe7 20.hxg5++ Kxg5 21.Nf3+ Kg4 22.Qg6+ Kf4 23.g3+! Kxf3

24.Qf5 mate!

20.h5!

Threatening mate on g6.

20…Nxh5 21.Qf5

Black resigned in view of 21…g6 22.Rxh5+! gxh5 23.Qf6 mate.

IG 2.3

Steinitz

Von Bardeleben

Hastings 1895

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3

This Greco Variation almost invariably leads to amusing play.

7…d5?!

The usual 7…Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3, as in Schwarz-Teschner, Berlin 1949, is Black’s

best bet.

8.exd5 Nxd5 9.0-0 Be6

9…Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bxc3 is met by 11.Bxf7+! Kf8 (after 11…Kxf7 White wins
back the piece, with advantage, with 12.Qb3+) 12.Qb3! Bxa1 13.Ba3+ Ne7
14.Re1, with winning play.

10.Bg5 Be7

After 10…Qd7?, 11.Bxd5 Bxd5 12.Re1+ is quite annoying.

11.Bxd5 Bxd5 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Re1 f6

In order to effect an artificial castling manoeuvre with …Kf7.

15.Qe2

15.Qa4+! is probably the strongest continuation here, e.g. 15…Kf7 16.Ne5+!

fxe5 17.Rxe5 Qd6 18.Qc4+ Kf8 19.Rae1 Ng8 20.Rd5 Qc6 21.Qb4+ Kf7 22.Rc5
Qd6 23.Qc4+ Kf8 24.Rxc7 Nh6 25.Rc8+, winning.

Thus an analysis by Geller in the night train from Moscow to Murmansk in

November 1983!

15…Qd7 16.Rac1 c6?!

Here, 16…Kf7 has been recommended as stronger, and this move is certainly a
harder nut to crack.

After 17.Qc4+ Black has 17…Nd5, but 17.Ne5+!? fxe5 18.dxe5 probably yields
White chances, e.g. 18…Qe6 19.Qf3+ Kg6 (19…Qf5 is also worth looking at:
20.e6+ (20.Qxb7!? may be stronger) 20…Kg6 21.Qxb7 Rhf8 22.f3 Rab8
23.Qxc7 Rxb2 24.Qxe7 Rxg2+! 25.Kxg2 Qxf3+, and perpetual check, according
to a contemporary analysis by Crouch and Haines in the English tournament
book published in 1995!) 20.Rxc7 Rhd8 21.Qxb7 Rab8 22.Rxe7, and Black’s
problems persist, thus an analysis in the Russian tournament book published in
St Petersburg in 1895!

17.d5! cxd5

After 17…Kf7, 18.dxc6 Nxc6 19.Rcd1 is very unpleasant.

18.Nd4 Kf7 19.Ne6 Rhc8

19…Rac8 is also met by 20.Qg4, while after 19…Nc6 White has 20.Nc5 Qc8
21.Qb5 Rb8 22.Na6! Ra8 23.Qxd5+ Kg6 24.Nc5, and wins.

20.Qg4! g6 21.Ng5+! Ke8

22.Rxe7+! Kf8

The rook cannot be taken: 22…Qxe7 23.Rxc8+, or 22…Kxe7 23.Re1+ Kd6

24.Qb4+ Kc7 25.Ne6+ Kb8 26.Qf4+.

23.Rf7+!

White cannot take the black queen in view of mate on c1!

23…Kg8

23…Qxf7 is met by the winning 24.Rxc8+ again.

24.Rg7+! Kh8

24…Kf8 White plays the decisive 25.Nxh7+ Kxg7 26.Qxd7, check!

25.Rxh7+
Here the black player left the playing hall, never to return. The planned finale
was: 25…Kg8 26.Rg7+ Kh8 27.Qh4+ Kxg7 28.Qh7+ Kf8 29.Qh8+ Ke7
30.Qg7+ Ke8 (or 30…Kd6 31.Qxf6+, or 30…Kd8 31.Qf8+ Qe8 32.Nf7+)
31.Qg8+ Ke7 32.Qf7+ Kd8 33.Qf8+ Qe8 34.Nf7+ Kd7 35.Qd6 mate!

Very elegant! This variation, I mean, not the black player absconding.

IG 2.3

Schwarz

Teschner

Berlin 1949

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-
0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 d5

9…Bxc3 is regarded as bad, but after both 10.Ba3 d5! and 10.Qb3 d5! 11.Bxd5
0-0! things are unclear.

10.cxb4 dxc4 11.Re1+ Ne7 12.Bg5

An alternative is 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Bg5 (13.Ng5 Qd7 14.Nxe6 Qxe6 is easy for
Black) 13…Qd5 (13…Qd7?! is met by 14.Bxe7! Kxe7 15.d5! Qxd5 16.Rad1,
with a strong initiative, writes Rosenzweig) 14.Bxe7 Kxe7 15.Qc2!, with
pressure, e.g. 15…f6 16.Ng5!? fxg5 17.Re5 Qxd4 18.Rae1 Rae8 19.Qe2!? Kd7
20.Rd1 Qxd1+ 21.Qxd1+ Kc8 22.h3, and White remains slightly better,
according to an analysis by Heyken and Fette.

12…f6 13.Qe2 0-0!

According to an analysis by Rosenzweig, 13…fxg5!? is also playable: 14.Qxc4

Rf8 15.Re5 g4 16.Ng5 h6 17.Nh7 Rf7 18.Rae1 Qd6 19.Rxe7+ Rxe7 20.Qg8+
Kd7 21.Nf8+ Kc6 22.Qc4+ Kb6 23.Qc5+ Qxc5 24.bxc5+ Kc6 25.Rxe7 Bf5,
with a roughly equal endgame.

14.Qxe7 fxg5 15.Qc5 Qf6 16.Nxg5

Here, 16.d5! looks strong. Square f2 is now covered, and after 16…Bg4 or 16…
g4 White can just play 17.Ne5.

16…Qxf2+ 17.Kh1 Bg4 18.Qxc4+ Kh8 19.Rf1 Be2! 20.Nf7+ Kg8 21.Nh6++
Kh8 22.Nf7+

After 22.Qg8+ Rxg8 23.Rxf2 gxh6 24.Rxe2 Rg4 there isn’t much life left in the
position either.

22…Kg8 23.Nh6++ Kh8

Draw.

IG 2.5

Rossolimo

Reissman

Puerto Rico 1967

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+
8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 Nce7

An important question is whether White has more than move repetition after
10…Na5!?: 11.Qa4+ Nc6 12.Qb3, as after 12.Ne5 Black has the finesse 12…0-
0! 13.Nxc6 Qe8, with good play.

11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfe1 c6 13.a4 b6?!

Now Black is getting in some trouble. Practice has shown that 13…Nf5, 13…
Rb8 and 13…Qb6 are good moves.

14.Ne5!

A fine square for the knight.

14…Bb7 15.a5 Rc8 16.Ne4 Qc7 17.a6 Ba8 18.Qh3 Nf4

Bad is 18…c5? in view of 19.Ng5 h6 20.Ngxf7! Rxf7 21.Nxf7 Kxf7 22.Qe6+

Kf8 23.Ra3, with fine attacking play by White.

19.Qg4 Ned5

Black has an awkward position. 19…Nfg6?, for example, would run into the
strong 20.Bxf7+! Rxf7 21.Nxf7 Kxf7 22.Ng5, with a winning attack.

20.Ra3 Ne6?

This is refuted. Allowing the rook to land on square h3 is suicide. After 20…c5!
White still has to find a way to break through the black defences. A good
continuation, it seems to me, is 21.Rf3.

21.Bxd5 cxd5 22.Nf6+ Kh8

23.Qg6!!

An extraordinarily beautiful move that wins at once.

23…Qc2

Or 23…fxg6 24.Nxg6+, and mate!

24.Rh3!

The last hammerblow.

The black king is clearly doomed, so Black resigned.

IG 2.11

Estrin

Bikhovsky

Moscow 1967

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 d6 5.d3 Nf6 6.c3 Bg4

The modern way to handle the Giuoco Pianissimo Variation goes 6…0-0 7.Bb3
a6 8.Nbd2 Ba7 9.h3 h6, with chances for both sides.

7.Qb3?!
An ambitious move: White is attacking b7 and f7. But less violent moves such as
7.Bb3, 7.Nbd2 or 7.Be3 are better.

7…Bxf3 8.Qxb7?

This is refuted. Stronger is 8.Bxf7+ Kf8 9.gxf3, although Black has

compensation for his pawn.

8…Qd7! 9.gxf3

9.Qxa8+ Ke7 10.Qxh8 is met by 10…Qg4, and mate.

9…Rb8 10.Qa6 Rb6 11.Qa4 Qh3 12.Nd2

12.Qd1 runs into 12…h5!, as in the game.

12…h5!

With the threat of 13…Ng4! 14.fg4 hg4, and mate on h2 or f2.

13.Rd1 Rh6!

After 13…Ng4 White now had the defence 14.fxg4 hxg4 15.Nf1.

14.Nf1 Rg6+ 15.Ng3 Rxg3+ 16.hxg3 Qxg3+

White resigned in view of 17.Kh1 Bxf2 and 18…Qh3 mate.

IG 2.13

Bus

Dubiel
Suwalki 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 a6 6.0-0 Ba7 7.Nbd2 0-0 8.Re1?!

A slight inaccuracy that weakens square f2. Better was 8.Bb3. 8…d5 can be met
by 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nc4, while in case of 8…d6 White can play 9.h3 or 9.Nc4.

8…d6 9.Bb3

Stronger was 9.Nf1 in order to be able to meet 9…Ng4 with 10.Ne3. It’s true
that Black could have exchanged the white bishop then with 9…Na5, but this
wouldn’t have been such a disaster.

9…Ng4!? 10.Re2 Kh8 11.h3

11.Nf1 f5 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Ng3 Bg6 14.h3 Nf6 also leaves Black with a pleasant
position.

11…Nh6 12.Nf1

12.g4 would have prevented …f5, but Black plays the strong 12…Nxg4!
13.hxg4 Bxg4 14.Qf1 f5, and Black has fine attacking play for his piece. Thus
the game Popek-Dubiel from the same tournament!

12…f5 13.exf5 Nxf5 14.Kh2 Nh4

The black position is playing itself.

15.Nxh4 Qxh4 16.Be3

16.f3 is simply refuted by 16…Rxf3 17.gxf3 Qxh3 mate.

16…Bg4!

This is how Black exploits the bad position of Re2.

17.f3 Bxf3!

Very effective. The white castled position is in tatters.

18.gxf3 Rxf3

Square h3 cannot be covered.

19.Bxa7 Rxh3+ 20.Kg2

Or 20.Kg1 Rh1+ 21.Kg2 Qh3+ 22.Kf2 Rf8+, and it’s finished.

20…Qg4+ 21.Kf2 Rf8+ 22.Ke1 Rxf1+!

A little fireworks display to round off the proceedings.

23.Kxf1 Rh1+ 24.Kf2 Qf4+ 25.Kg2 Rh2+

White resigned in view of 26.Kg1 Qg3+, and mate.

IG 2.16

Vallejo
 Izeta

Elgoibar 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 h6

The Italian Four Knights Game is not really dangerous for Black, but as we will
see, accuracy is called for. A good alternative is 6…Na5.

7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.c3 0-0

A nice example with 9…a6 in which Black goes astray is the game Inkiov-
Schüssler, Haifa 1989: 10.d4 Ba7 11.dxe5! dxe5 12.Qe2 Bg4 13.Rd1 Qb8?!
14.b4 0-0 15.h3 Be6 16.0-0 Re8 17.Nh4 b5 18.Bb3 Ne7? 19.Nf6+! gxf6
20.Bxe6 fxe6 21.Qg4+ Kh8 22.Rd7! Rg8 23.Qxe6 Qf8 24.Rxe7 Rd8 25.Nf5
Rg6 26.Rxc7 Bb8 27.Rf7 Qe8 28.Qxe8+ Rxe8 29.Rd1, and Black resigned.

10.d4 Bb6 11.dxe5 Nxe5

After 11…dxe5 White plays 12.Qe2, as in Inkiov-Schüssler.

12.Nxe5 dxe5 13.Qh5 Qd6?!

Better is 13…c6!, and White will make little progress: 14.Nxb6 Qxb6 15.0-0-0!?
(after 15.Qxe5?! Qxb2 16.0-0 b5 17.Bb3 a5! Black has counterplay) 15…Qxf2
16.Qxe5 Bg4 17.Rhf1 Qe3+ 18.Rd2 Rad8 19.Qf4 Qxd2+ 20.Qxd2 Rxd2
21.Kxd2 Be6, with a dead-equal endgame.

14.0-0-0 Qc5

Now 14…c6? is no longer possible, and 14…Be6? 15.Nf6+ also costs the queen.

15.Bb3 a5

15…Be6 is met by 16.Nf6+! gxf6 (or 16…Kh8 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Nd7, winning
the exchange) 17.Bxe6, winning, e.g. 17…fxe6 18.Qg6+ Kh8 19.Rd7, and mate.

15…Qxf2 won’t work either: 16.Rhf1 Qxg2 17.Rxf7! Rxf7 18.Nf6+ gxf6
19.Qxf7+ Kh8 20.Rd8+, and mate.

16.g4! a4
17.Nf6+ Kh8!

Or 17…gxf6 18.Qg6+ Kh8 19.Qxh6+ Kg8 20.Rd3, with the winning threat
21.Qg6+ Kh8 22.Rh3 mate. After 20…Bxg4, 21.Qg6+ Kh8 22.Qxg4 simply
wins.

18.Bxf7 Qxf2

18…Qe7 is met by 19.g5, e.g. 19…Rxf7 20.Qxf7! Qxf7 21.Rd8+, and mate.

19.Rhf1 Qe3+ 20.Kb1 Qg5

The only move; 20…gxf6 is met by 21.Rxf6 Qxe4+ 22.Ka1 Be3 23.g5! Bxg5
24.Rxh6+ Kg7 25.Qxg5+, and mate.

21.Qxg5 hxg5 22.Nd7 Bxd7

Or 22…Rd8 23.Nxb6 Rxd1+ 24.Rxd1 cxb6 25.Rd8+.

23.Rxd7 Rad8 24.Rf3! g6

Or 24…Rxd7 25.Rh3 mate.

25.Re7 Rd2 26.Rh3+ Kg7 27.Bc4+ Kf6 28.Rhh7

Black resigned, as he will soon be mated.

IG 5.2

Kasparov

Piket
Amsterdam 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4

The ancient Evans Gambit, one of the most frequently played openings of the
19th century and still the subject of countless theoretical discussions around the
opening.

First an example in which Black refuses the proffered pawn.

4…Bb6 5.a4 a5

A good alternative is 5…a6.

6.b5 Nd4 7.Nxd4

7.Nxe5? is bad: 7…Qg5 8.Nxf7 Qxg2 9.Rf1 Qxe4+ 10.Be2 Nf3 mate!

7…Bxd4 8.c3 Bb6 9.d4 exd4?!

It is risky to challenge Kasparov in this way! A blunder is 9…d6? in view of

10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Bxf7+. Passive but playable is 9…Qe7 10.0-0 d6.

10.0-0

The simple 10.cxd4 is also possible, but White wants to prevent both d7-d5 and
the counterblow Ne7.

10…Ne7

Taking the c3 pawn is too much of a good thing: 10…dxc3?! 11.Nxc3, and
White has a considerable lead in development.

11.Bg5

After 11.cxd4 d5! 12.exd5 Nxd5 13.Re1+ Be6 14.Ba3 Qd7 15.Nd2 0-0-0 Black
has an eminently playable position.

11…h6 12.Bxe7!

12.Bh4 0-0 13.cxd4 g5! 14.Bg3 d5 15.exd5 Nxd5 is not bad for Black.

12…Qxe7 13.cxd4 Qd6?!

Another risky move. After 13…0-0 14.Nc3 d6 15.Qd3 White has an excellent
position, but 13…Qb4 was preferable: 14.Na3 0-0 15.Qd3 d5!, and now White is
only slightly better after 16.exd5 Bd7 17.Nc2 Qd6 18.Ne3. Kasparov indicates
16.Bxd5!? Qxd4 17.Qxd4 Bxd4 18.Rad1 Bc5 19.Nc4.
14.Nc3!

A forced pawn sacrifice, but also a very strong one.

14…Bxd4

14…Qxd4 is also met by 15.Nd5!, e.g. 15…Qxc4 (15…Qe5!? may be better)

16.Rc1 Qa2 17.Rxc7! Bxc7 18.Nxc7+ Ke7 19.Nxa8 d6 20.Qc1!, and White wins
(Kasparov).

15.Nd5! Bxa1 16.Qxa1 0-0

16…f6 has been recommended as better, but even then, according to Kasparov,
White gets excellent play with 17.b6! cxb6 18.e5! fxe5 19.Re1 Kd8 20.Rxe5.
How is Black ever to break loose?

17.e5 Qc5 18.Rc1 c6

Or 18…d6 19.Bb3 Qa7 20.Rxc7 dxe5 21.Qxe5, and Black will soon go under.

19.Ba2 Qa3

After 19…Qxc1+ 20.Qxc1 cxd5 21.Bxd5 Black remains locked in, while 19…
Qa7 20.b6 Qb8 21.Ne7+ Kh8 22.Qd4 is a real tragicomedy!

20.Nb6

Setting up an important threat: 21.Bxf7+!.

20…d5 21.Nxa8 Kh8

After 21…Qxa4 22.bxc6 bxc6 23.Nb6 things are bad as well. Black could have
spared himself the last bit of agony.

22.Nb6 Be6 23.h3 Rd8 24.bxc6 bxc6 25.Rc3 Qb4 26.Rxc6 Rb8 27.Nxd5 Qxa4
28.Rc1 Qa3 29.Bc4

Black resigned.
IG 5.5

Labatt

Dobbs

New Orleans 1905

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 Bb6 8.0-0
d6 9.Nc3

Other possibilities are 9.d5, 9.Qb3, 9.e5, 9.Bb2 and 9.Ba3, to mention but a few.

9…Na5

And Black has several possibilities as well, such as 9…Nf6 and 9…Bg4.

10.Bg5 Ne7

Promising for White is 10…Qd7?! 11.Bd3, as is 10…f6?! 11.Bf4 Nxc4 12.Qa4+

Qd7 13.Qxc4 Qf7 14.Nd5 and 10…Nf6?! 11.Bd3.

11.Nd5

Also quite interesting is 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Nd5 Re8 (after 12…Nac6?! 13.Bxe7
Nxe7 14.Ng5+ White has a strong attack, e.g. 14…Kf8 (14…Kg6 15.Nf4+! or
14…Kg8 15.Qb3) 15.Qf3+ Nf5 16.Nh3 Bxd4 17.Rad1 Be5 18.exf5) 13.Bxe7
Rxe7 14.Ng5+ Kg8 15.Qh5, and now 15…h6 16.Qg6 hxg5 17.Nf6+ Kf8
18.Nh7+ Kg8 19.Nf6+, with perpetual check, according to an analysis by
Chigorin from 1890.

Or 15…g6 16.Nf6+ Kg7 (16…Kh8? 17.Qh6!) 17.Qxh7+ Kxf6 18.e5+ Kxg5

(18…dxe5? 19.Ne4+) 19.f4+ Kf5 20.Qh3+ Ke4 21.Qf3+ Kf5 22.Qh3+ Ke4
23.Qf3+, also with perpetual check, according to a modern analysis by Botterill!

11…f6!

The only good move. After 11…Nxc4? 12.Bxe7 Qd7 13.Bf6! White has
promising play: 13…0-0 (or 13…Qg4 14.h3 Qg6 15.Bh4 f6 16.Qa4+ c6
17.Qxc4 cxd5 18.Qxd5) 14.Qc1! Qg4 15.Ne7+ Kh8 16.Qh6!, etc., while 11…
Nac6? is met by 12.Nh4! 0-0 13.Nf6+!, and wins.

12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Nxf6+ Kf8 14.Ng5

14…Nxc4!

Weaker is 14…Ng8?! 15.Ngxh7+ Kg7 16.Bxg8 Rxh7 (or 16…Rxg8 17.Qh5,

winning) 17.Nxh7 Qh4 (or 17…Qxg8 18.Ng5, and White keeps attacking)
18.Qf3 Kxg8 19.Nf6+ Kg7 20.Nh5+ Kg6 21.Nf4+ Kh7 22.Nd5 Be6 23.Nxb6
axb6 24.d5 Bg8 25.Rac1 Qe7 26.Qh3+, and Black resigned, Chigorin-Urusov, cr
1884!

15.Qh5

After 15.Qf3? White would be unpleasantly surprised by 15…Nf5!.

15…Kg7 16.Qf7+

And certainly not 16.Nf7? Qf8 17.Nxh8 Qxf6.

16…Kh6 17.Qh5+

Can White play for a win here? Here are a few possibilities: 17.Ng4+? Bxg4
18.Qf6+ Kh5! 19.Nf7 Ng8! 20.Qxh8 Qf6 21.Qxh7+ Nh6 22.f3 Bxf3 23.g4+
Kh4, and Black is safe, or 17.Ngxh7?! Bxd4 18.g4 Bxf6 19.Nxf6 Rg8! 20.f4
Rxg4+ 21.Kh1 Qh8 22.f5 Ne5 23.Nxg4+ Nxg4 24.Qxe7 Qf6 25.Qxc7 Nf2+
26.Kg1 Nxe4 27.Qa5 Bd7, and White resigned, Smith-Clarke, correspondence
game 1978/79. It may be worth looking at 17.Rac1!?, a suggestion from
Matsukevich.

After the text the players decided on a draw, as White has perpetual check: 17…
Kg7 18.Qf7+ Kh6 19.Qh5+. A short game, but food for hours of analysis! And
fun!

IG 5.7

Chytilek
 Nemec

Correspondence game 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.dxe5
Bb6

8…dxe5 is also possible. 9.Ba3 Bb6 gives rise to the same position as in the
game, but White has the extra possibility of 9.0-0, followed by Rd1.

9.Nbd2 dxe5

Another possibility is 9…Na5 10.Qc2 (after 10.Qb4 Nxc4 11.Nxc4 Bc5 12.Qb3
Ne7 13.0-0 0-0 14.exd6 cxd6 the position is roughly equal, Short-Hübner,
Dortmund 1997) 10…Nxc4 11.Nxc4 d5 12.exd5 Qxd5, with unclear play.

10.Ba3 Na5 11.Qb4 c5 12.Qb2 Nxc4 13.Nxc4 f6 14.Rd1 Qc6 15.Nd6+ Ke7
16.Nxc8+

Earlier games saw 16.0-0 Nh6 17.c4 Nf7 18.Nxc8+ Raxc8 19.Rd5. The position
is not clear, but White does have compensation for the pawn.

16…Rxc8 17.0-0 Qxe4

After 17…Kf8 18.Rd2 Rd8 19.Rfd1 Rxd2 20.Qxd2 White has good
compensation for his pawn, according to the white player.

18.Rfe1 Qa4 19.Qe2! Kf7

19…Qxa3? is refuted by 20.Nxe5!, but 19…Kf8!? is a possibility: 20.Nxe5 fxe5

21.Qxe5 Re8 22.Bxc5+ Bxc5 23.Qxc5+ Kf7 24.Qd5+ Kg6 25.Qd3+, and White
has a draw by perpetual check, but no more.
20.Nxe5+!? fxe5 21.Qh5+! g6 22.Qxe5 Re8 23.Qd5+
23…Kf8?

This loses. Even in correspondence games, played with the help of computers
these days, you cannot see everything, and errors can never be ruled out.

Correct was 23…Kg7! 24.Qxb7+ Kf8 25.c4 (25.Bc1!? may be stronger) 25…
Nf6 26.Bb2 Rxe1+ 27.Rxe1 Bd8 28.Qc8 Kg7 29.Qb7+, again with nothing more
than perpetual check. Thus the white player.

24.Rxe8+ Qxe8

After 24…Kxe8 25.Re1+ Ne7 26.Qe5 the mating threat on e7 costs Black the h8
rook.

25.Qd4!

The refutation of 23…Kf8?. Thanks to the pin on pawn c5 White is threatening

the black rook in the corner.

25…Qe2

What else?

26.Ra1! Qa6 27.Re1

Black resigned. After 27…Qxa3 28.Qd7 Nf6 29.Qe7+ Kg8 30.Qxf6 he is totally
lost.

IG 5.8

Schröder

Feher Polgar
Correspondence game 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3?!

This is very risky! 7…Nge7 would be wiser.

8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7

No better, really, is 10…Bxc3, e.g. 11.Qxc3 Nge7 12.Ng5 0-0 13.Bd3 f5 14.exf6
Qxf6 15.Bxh7+ Kh8 16.Qh3, and Black resigned, Paulsson-Frolander,
Stockholm 1994.

11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rad1

White has good compensation for the two pawns.

12…Rb8

After 12…b5 13.Bd3! Qg4 14.Ne4 h6 15.Nc5 d6 16.Ne4 b4 17.Bb2 Bb7 18.h3
Qe6 19.Bc4 d5 20.Rxd5! White also had good chances, Yankovich-Markov,
correspondence game 1986/87.

13.Bd3 Qe6?!

According to Harding, 13…Qh5 14.Ne4 Nxe5 15.Bxe7 Nxf3+ was Black’s only
chance.

14.Bxh7+! Kh8

14…Kxh7? 15.Ng5+ loses the queen, of course.

15.Nd5 d6

After 15…Nxd5 16.Rxd5 Re8 17.Bc2 White also has a strong attack.

16.exd6 Nxd5 17.Rxd5 Rd8

After 17…cxd6 White wins with 18.Ng5! 18…Qh6 19.Bxd6.

18.Ng5 Qe8 19.Rxa5! Nxa5 20.Nxf7+ Kxh7 21.Qc2+ g6 22.dxc7

The amusing point of the previous sequence. White wins.

22…Bf5 23.cxb8Q Rxb8 24.Qc7 Nc6 25.Ng5++ Kh6 26.Qf4 Qe2 27.Ne6+

Black resigned. There now follows 27…Kh7 28.Qc7+ Kh6 29.Qg7+ Kh5
30.Qh7+ Kg4 31.h3 mate.

IG 5.8
 Johnson

Webb

Correspondence game 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5
d5

Bad is 8…0-0? in view of 9.Qh5, but 8…Ne5 is playable: 9.Nxf7 Nxf7

10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qxa5, with an unclear position.

9.exd5 Ne5 10.Bb3

After 10.Qxd4 f6 (bad is 10…Nxc4? 11.Qxg7 Rf8 12.Nxh7, but 10…N7g6!? is

a possibility, according to the white player) 11.Bb5+ c6 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Be2 the
position is roughly equal.

10…0-0

10…dxc3?! 11.Qe2 f6 12.Ne4 is extremely dangerous, e.g. 12…Nxd5 13.Ba3 c6

14.Nd6+ Kd7 15.f4 Ng6 16.Bxd5 Qb6+ 17.Kh1 cxd5 18.Nxc3! Bxc3 19.Rab1;
thus a game of Bronstein against a computer, The Hague 1992.

11.cxd4

After 11.Nxh7 Kxh7 12.Qh5+ Kg8 13.Qxe5 dxc3 14.Ba3 Ng6 15.Qh5 Nf4!
16.Qf3 Qf6! 17.Bxf8 Nh3+ 18.Kh1 Qxf3 19.gxf3 Kxf8 20.Na3 Bb6 an analysis
by Chandler gives Black good compensation for the exchange. Otherwise,
11.Qxd4 N7g6 causes few problems for Black.

11…Ng4 12.Ba3 Nh6 13.Nd2 b5!

White was threatening 14.Nc4, followed by 15.d6!.

14.Nde4 b4
15.Qc2

The best move, although it doesn’t yield White much. After 15.Bb2 Nxd5 Black
certainly has no problems.

15…Nhf5

The bishop could not be taken: 15…bxa3? 16.Nf6+ gxf6 17.Qxh7 mate.

16.Qc5 bxa3 17.Qxa5 Bb7 18.Nf3 Bxd5 19.Ned2 c6

After 19…Bxb3 20.Nxb3 White is slightly better.

20.Qxa3 Ng6 21.Rfe1 Bxf3!? 22.Nxf3 Nxd4 23.Nxd4 Qxd4 24.Rad1 Qg4!

After 24…Qb6?! 25.Rd7 Black has a very awkward position. The text-move
maintains the balance.

25.Qc5 Nf4

And here a draw was agreed. Move repetition is on the cards: 26.Qxc6 Rac8
27.Qe4 Rce8.

IG 5.8

Krantz

Eilmes

Correspondence game 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.cxd4
d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3

10.Ba3 is also possible.

10…Nce7

An important alternative here is 10…Be6. See the game Shankar-

Venkataramanan, 1994.

11.Ba3 c6
12.Bxe7! Kxe7

12…Qxe7 13.Bxd5 cxd5 14.Qa4+ loses a piece, and 12…Nxe7 13.Bxf7+

doesn’t look too cheerful either.

13.Bxd5!

It’s remarkable to see White part with such a strong bishop twice in a row!

13…Qxd5

Maybe 13…cxd5 14.Qa3+ Kf6 15.Nc3 was preferable to what follows in the
game.

14.Qa3+ Kd8

14…Kf6 doesn’t look too healthy either. In Krantz-Marcussi, correspondence

game 1975/77, there followed: 15.Nc3 Bxc3 16.Qxc3 Re8 (Black should have
tried …Be6 here or on the next move) 17.Rfe1 Bf5 (again: 17…Be6!?) 18.Qb4!
Be4 19.Re3 b6 20.Rae1 Re6 21.Ne5 Bf5 (or 21…Bxg2 22.Ng4+ Kg6 23.Rxe6+
fxe6 24.Ne3) 22.g4 c5 23.dxc5 Rae8 24.g5+!, and Black resigned.

15.Rc1! Bc7

In Erlandsson-Demidenko, correspondence game 1980/83, Black played 15…b6,

after which White struck with 16.Rc5!: 16…bxc5 17.Qxa5+ Ke8 18.Nc3 Qd8
19.Qxc5 Be6 20.d5! Bxd5 21.Re1+ Be6 22.Nd4 Qd7 23.Nf5 Rg8 24.Rd1!,
winning.

16.Nc3 Bd6 17.Qb2 Qa5

After 17…Qf5 White throws open the centre with 18.d5!.

18.Qb3

Now 18.d5? didn’t really work in view of 18…Ba3.

18…Ke7 19.Re1+ Kf8 20.Re3 Rb8?

In such a difficult position you can’t really get away with such a weak defensive
move. Black should have drafted the queen into the defence with 20…Qc7.

After 21.Rae1 Be6 the sacrifice on e6 is not convincing, while after 21.Ng5
Black still has a defence in 21…Bxh2+ 22.Kh1 Bf4.

21.Rae1 Be6

Hoping that the sacrifice on e6 won’t be decisive. Black could have waited to see
what White would play after 21…Bd7; 22.Ne4 Qb4 23.Nxd6 Qxd6 24.Ng5
seems to be enough. Or 22…Be6 23.Nxd6 Qxe1 24.Nxe1 Bxb3 25.Rxb3 b6
26.Rc3.

22.Rxe6! fxe6 23.Qxe6 Qc7

23…Qxc3 is met by 24.Qxd6+, and White wins.

24.Ne5 Rd8 25.Re3!

White is justifiably looking for more than perpetual check.

25…Qe7 26.Qf5+ Kg8 27.Nxc6 bxc6?

Black gives up. With 27…Qf7 28.Qxf7+ (28.Qg5 Rf8 29.Rf3 Qc4) 28…Kxf7
29.Nxd8+ Rxd8 he could have limited the damage to one pawn.

28.Rxe7 Bxe7 29.d5! cxd5 30.Nxd5 Bc5 31.g4

Black resigned. After 31…h6?, 32.Nf6+ gxf6 33.Qg6+ Kf8 34.Qxf6+ makes for
an amusing finish.

He was, it seems, not interested in the defence 31…Rf8 32.Qe6+ Rf7 (33.Qc8+
Bf8).

IG 5.8

Shankar
 Venkataramanan

Calcutta 1994

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nf6 8.cxd4
d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 Be6

This is regarded as Black’s best set-up.

11.Qxb7

11.Ba3 is met by 11…Qd7, intending to castle queenside. After 12.Rc1 Nb6 it is

doubtful whether White has enough compensation for the pawn.

11…Ndb4

Now the white queen is surrounded.

12.Bb5 Bd5

It is not completely clear what Black’s best move is here. The game Davis-
Peters, USA 1983, saw 12…Bd7?! 13.Re1+ Kf8 14.Ba3 Rb8 15.Qa6 Rb6?
(stronger was 15…Kg8!, unpinning Nb4, when after 16.Bxc6 Nxc6 17.Nbd2
things are unclear) 16.Qxa5 Nxa5 17.Bxb4+ Kg8 18.Bxd7, and Black was
deceived!

More than a century earlier Black did better in the game Anderssen-Mieses,
Breslau 1867: 12…0-0 13.Bxc6 Rb8 14.Qxa7 Nxc6 15.Qc5 Bd5, with good
compensation for the pawn.

13.Ne5!

Bad is the rash check 13.Re1+?. After 13…Kf8 (now Nc6 is no longer pinned!)
14.Ba3 Kg8 15.Bxb4 Nxb4 16.Qxa8 Qxa8 17.Re8+ Qxe8 18.Bxe8 Nc2 Black
wins.

13…0-0

13…Rb8 makes life more difficult for White, e.g. 14.Bxc6+ Nxc6 15.Qa6 Rb6
16.Qd3 0-0, and Black is slightly better, Schroeder-Harding, correspondence
game 1988.

14.Nxc6

Now we have a forced liquidation.

14…Nxc6 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Qxc6 Qxd4 17.Bd2! Bxd2

17…Qxa1?! 18.Bxa5 would give White chances again. After the text a draw was
concluded, as 18.Nxd2 Qxd2 19.Qxc7 leads to total equality.

IG 5.10

Kasparov

Anand

Riga 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Be7 6.d4 Na5 7.Be2

Black wants to return the pawn, but White doesn’t want it! After 7.Nxe5 Nxc4
8.Nxc4 d5 White has achieved nothing.
7…exd4

7…d6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qa4+ c6 10.Nxe5 Nf6 11.0-0 gives White a slight
advantage.

8.Qxd4 Nf6

For 8…d6, see the game Shirov-Timman, 1995. A suggestion from Kasparov is
8…d5!? 9.exd5 Nf6 10.c4 0-0 11.0-0 (or 11.Nc3 Bb4) 11…b5!?, with
counterplay.

9.e5 Nc6 10.Qh4 Nd5 11.Qg3 g6

11…0-0 costs Black the exchange: 12.Bh6.

12.0-0 Nb6

After 12…0-0 13.Bh6 Re8 14.c4 Nb6 15.Nc3 d6 16.Rad1 White has good
compensation for the pawn, and after 12…d6 13.Rd1 (Kasparov) as well.

13.c4 d6

Kasparov has suggested 13…Na4!? here.

14.Rd1 Nd7?!

Black spurns his last chance to castle.

15.Bh6!
15…Ncxe5

Kasparov indicates that White also retains the initiative after 15…dxe5 16.Nc3,
e.g. 16…Bf8 17.Bg5 Be7 18.Nd5.

16.Nxe5 Nxe5 17.Nc3

White calmly continues to develop.

17…f6

17…Nd7 is met by 18.Ne4! f5 (or 18…Bf8 19.Qc3 f6 20.Bf4, with good play
for the sacrificed pawns, according to Kasparov) 19.Ng5 Nc5 20.Bf3, with
heavy pressure on the black position.

17…Bf8!? may have been Black’s best chance.

18.c5! Nf7 19.cxd6 cxd6

19…Bxd6 is met by 20.Bb5+ c6 21.Bf4, and White is winning.

20.Qe3 Nxh6 21.Qxh6 Bf8 22.Qe3+ Kf7

22…Qe7 runs into 23.Qd4.

23.Nd5
23…Be6?!

Now the end is nigh. 23…Bg7 would have been met by 24.Bc4 Be6 25.Bb3 Re8
26.Nf4 d5 27.Nxe6 Rxe6 28.Rxd5!, and wins, but 23…Bd7 24.Rac1 Bc6 would
be slightly more stubborn, although White is still better after 25.Bc4, again
according to Kasparov.

24.Nf4! Qe7 25.Re1

Black resigned. He is beyond hope: 25…Bh6 26.Bc4 or 25…d5 26.Bf3 or 25…

Re8 26.Nxe6 Qxe6 27.Qxe6+ Rxe6 (or 27…Kxe6 28.Bb5+) 28.Bc4.

IG 5.10

Shirov

Timman

Biel 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Be7 6.d4 Na5 7.Be2 exd4 8.Qxd4
d6 9.Qxg7 Bf6 10.Qg3 Qe7 11.0-0 Bd7

11…Qxe4 looks suspect, but after 12.Re1 (12.Nd4 Be5! is good for Black) 12…
Kf8 White’s compensation is unclear: 13.Bb5 Qg6.

12.Nd4 0-0-0
After 12…Qxe4 13.Nd2 White has compensation for the pawn.

13.Nd2 Nc6 14.Qe3 h5 15.Rb1 Nh6 16.Qd3

With the threat of 17.Qa6!. According to Shirov, 16.Nxc6 Bxc6 17.Qxa7 Qe5! is
very unclear.

16…b6

Black could also have played 16…Rdg8, when 17.Rxb7? won’t work: 17…
Nxd4 18.Qa6 Nxe2+ 19.Kh1 Qe6!, and the king runs away: c8-d8-e7. But
17.N2f3 retains some advantage for White, according to Shirov.

17.a4!
17…Kb8?!

The wrong direction! Correct was 17…Rdg8, and now 18.a5 Nxa5 19.Qa6+ Kd8
20.Qxa7 Ke8!, and the king finds a safe spot, although White retains some
advantage.

18.a5! Nxa5 19.Qa6 Ka8?

Now White’s attack strikes home. Necessary was 19…Bxd4 20.cxd4 Ka8,
although White still has good chances for the pawn after 21.Bb2 Bc8 22.Qb5.
20.e5! Qxe5

After 20…dxe5 White wins with 21.Bf3+ Kb8 22.Qxa5 exd4 23.Qxa7+! Kxa7
24.Ra1+, and mate!

21.Bf3+ d5 22.Nc4! Bc8

After 22…Nxc4 White had a choice between 23.Ra1 Na5 24.Rxa5 bxa5 25.Nc6
Bxc6 26.Be3, and 23.Qxc4, e.g. 23…Bc8 24.Qa4 a5 25.Nc6 Bd7 26.Bf4 Qxc3
27.Bxd5, and White wins (Shirov).

23.Qxa5 Qxd4

The only move. 23…bxa5 is met decisively by 24.Nxe5 Bxe5 25.Nc6.

24.Qa2! Qxc3 25.Be3!

After 25.Bb2? Black still had the trick 25…Qxf3! 26.gxf3 Rhg8+ 27.Kh1 dxc4
28.Bxf6? Bb7!, and suddenly it’s Black who wins!

25…Bb7 26.Bxb6! cxb6 27.Nxb6+ Kb8 28.Nxd5

Black resigned, as 28…Qxf3 29.gxf3 Rhg8+ 30.Kh1 is powerless now.

 A.C. van der Tak

Ruy Lopez

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5

RL 1.3

Swenson

Nielsen

Correspondence game 1956

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5

The most common move is 3…a6, but we will start with a number of sidelines,
including this classical approach, with which Black tries to increase his influence
in the centre.

4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 Ne4 7.cxd4

More promising is the pawn sacrifice 7.0-0, as used in the correspondence game
Seisler-Perov, 1992.
7…Bb4+ 8.Kf1

Ambitious but not without risk. 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.0-0 d5 10.Qa4 Bxd2 11.Nxd2 Bd7
12.f3 a6 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.Qa3 Nxd2 15.Bxd2 Bb5 leads to approximately equal
play, Short-Kamsky, Linares 1994.

8…d5 9.Qa4 Qd7 10.e6

Since 10.Bxc6 Qxc6 11.Qxc6+ bxc6 is good for Black, White has no choice but
to go adventuring.

10…fxe6 11.Ne5 Qd6 12.Bxc6+

The Australian correspondence player Salm came up with the following

refutation of 12.Nxc6?: 12…bxc6 13.Bxc6+ Kd8! 14.Bxa8 Ba6+ 15.Kg1 Be1!,
and White is lost, e.g. 16.Be3 (or 16.g3 Bxf2+ 17.Kg2 Rf8 18.Bf4 Rxf4 19.gxf4
Qxf4 20.Qxa6 Qg4+ 21.Kf1 Qf3, and mate) 16…Bxf2+! 17.Bxf2 Qf4 18.h3
(after 18.Qc2 White plays the winning 18…Bd3!) 18…Qxf2+ 19.Kh2 Qg3+
20.Kg1 Bf1! 21.Qc2 Bd3 22.Qd1 Rf8 23.Nc3 Rf2 24.Rh2 Rf1+ 25.Qxf1 Qe3+
26.Kh1 Ng3 mate. Extraordinary!

12.Be3 could be followed by 12…0-0 13.Nd3 Ba5! 14.Bxc6 Bb6! (a fine move;
Black still wins back his piece) 15.Be8 Nf6 16.Bb5 c6 17.Bxc6 bxc6, with a
better position for Black, Marini-Nielsen, correspondence game 1956.

12…bxc6 13.a3

After 13.Qxc6+ Qxc6 14.Nxc6, 14…Ba6+ is annoying.

13…Bc5! 14.Nd3?

The white player had apparently foreseen this move. It is clear that 14.dxc5
Qxe5 15.Qxc6+? Ke7 16.Qxa8 won’t work in view of 16…Ba6+, and White
loses the queen. White should have gone for 14.Qxc6+ Qxc6 15.Nxc6 after all,
in spite of l5…Ba6+.

14…0-0! 15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Nxc5

After 16.Qc2, 16…Ba6 is murder.

16…Qxc5

With two threats: mate on f2 and taking on c1. White is lost.

17.Ke2 Rxf2+ 18.Kd3 e5

White resigned.

RL 1.3

Seisler

Perov

Correspondence game 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 Ne4 7.0-0 d5
7…dxc3?! is met by 8.Qd5 c2 9.Qxe4 cxb1Q 10.Rxb1, and White had good play
for his pawn in Tarve-Uusi, Soviet Union 1959. Ivan Sokolov has shown,
however, that after inserting 7…a6 8.Ba4 Black might possibly be able to take
on c3 after all. After 8…dxc3 9.Qd5 Black plays 9…cxb2 10.Bxb2 Bxf2+
11.Kh1 Nc5 12.e6 Nxe6 13.Rxf2 0-0, Wemmers-Sokolov, Amsterdam 2000.

8.exd6

A good alternative is 8.Nxd4, e.g. 8…0-0 9.f3 Ng5 10.Be3 Ne6 11.f4 f6 12.Kh1,
with good play for White, Nezhmetdinov-Valentinov, Soviet Union 1963.

8…0-0 9.dxc7 Qxc7 10.cxd4 Nxd4!

This move, discovered by the Belgian player Vandezande, is the point of Black’s
play. 10…Rd8?, incidentally, would be bad in view of 11.Qc2.

11.Nxd4 Qb6 12.Bd3

With 12.Be3 Rd8 13.Bd3 White can return his piece with equal play: 13…Bxd4
14.Bxe4 Bxe3 15.Qc2 Bd4 16.Nc3, Plunge-Beyen, correspondence game
1972/73. The text offers Black good chances to make a sacrifice.

12…Nxf2! 13.Rxf2 Bxd4 14.Qf3

A difficult moment. 14.Qc2 Rd8 15.Bf1 Rd5! 16.Nc3 Rf5 17.Nd1 Bd7 18.Bd3
Re8 also promised Black good prospects, as did 14.Qf1 Rd8 15.Be2 Re8!
16.Nc3 Bg4!, e.g. 17.Bc4 Bh5, possibly followed by Re8-e5-f5.
14…Bg4! 15.Qxg4 Bxf2+ 16.Kf1 Rfe8 17.Bxh7+

Other moves are no better: 17.Bd2 Rad8 18.Qf5 Rxd3! 19.Qxd3 Bg1! 20.Qf3
Bxh2 0-1, Hesse-Beyen, correspondence game 1974, or else 17.Be2 Be3 18.Nd2
Rac8 19.Nb3 Bxc1 20.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 21.Nxc1 Qxb2, with a favourable endgame
for Black, Markland-Kretschmar, correspondence game 1978/80. Striking, all
these correspondence games in this line!

17…Kxh7 18.Qf5+ Kg8 19.Qxf2 Qa6+!

19…Qb5+? would have been inaccurate, as White now saves himself with
21.Nc3! after 20.Kg1 Re2. After the text Black wins by force.

20.Kg1 Re2 21.Qf1 Rae8 22.Bd2 Qb6+ 23.Kh1 Qxb2 24.Bc3

All White’s moves are forced.

24…Qc2

Threatening 25…Re1! 26.Bxe1 Qd1.

25.Bd2 Qd3

Again threatening 26…Re1!.

26.Qg1 R8e6 27.a4 Rg6 28.h3

Or 28.Ra3 Rexg2 29.Qxg2 Qxb1+, and it’s finished.

28…Qf5

White resigned. After 29.a5, 29…Rg3, threatening 30…Rxh3+, wins, while

29.Be1 is met by 29…Rh6, e.g. 30.Qh2 Qf1+ 31.Qg1 Rxh3+ 32.gxh3 Qxh3+,
and mate.

RL 1.4
 Brüning

Sibbing

Berga 1975

1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 f5

The old Cordel Variation; something for players not averse to sharp play!

5.d4 fxe4 6.Bxc6

White has all kinds of alternatives here. First of all 6.Nfd2, as in Petrov-
Dimitrov, correspondence game 1990, and then:

A) 6.Ng5 Bb6 7.d5 e3! 8.dxc6? (8.Ne4 is a better move) 8…bxc6 9.h4 exf2+
10.Kf1 cxb5 11.Qd5 Nh6 12.Qxa8 c6 13.Ne4 0-0 14.Bxh6 Ba6!, and White
resigned, Zakharian-Nikolaev, Soviet Union 1964, as 15.Qxd8 is met by 15…
b4+, and mate!

B) 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Nf7 8.Bc4 Qe7 9.dxc5 Nf6 10.Qxf7!+ (10.Bxf7 Kf8!)
10…Qxf7 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Bf4 Nd5 13.Bg3, with slightly better play for
White, Kavalek-Hase, Lucerne 1982.

6…dxc6 7.Nxe5

After 7.Nfd2 Black won’t find it easy to equalize either. White is intending 7…
exd4? 8.Qh5+.

7…Bd6?!
After 7…Qd5 8.Bf4 Bd6 9.c4 Qe6 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qe2 White is slightly better;
Arnason-Rantanen, Helsinki 1986.

8.Qh5+ g6 9.Nxg6?

Obvious but not good. Better is 9.Qe2, e.g. 9…Qh4 10.Nd2 Bf5 11.g4!? Bxe5
12.gxf5 Bf6 13.fxg6 hxg6 14.Qxe4+ Kf7 15.Qxh4 Rxh4, and Black has at best
some compensation for the pawn, Davies-Speelman, Hastings 1987/88.

9…Nf6 10.Qh4 Rg8 11.Ne5 Bxe5 12.dxe5 Qd3!

Threatening 13…Bg4.

13.h3

After 13.Nd2 Bg4 14.f3 exf3 15.gxf3 Qe3+ 16.Kd1 Bxf3+ White might as well
resign.

13…Bg4!

Anyway!

14.hxg4 0-0-0 15.Bd2

After 15.Nd2 Black plays 15…e3 16.fxe3 Nxg4, with winning threats.

15…e3! 16.fxe3 Ne4 17.Qxh7

Preventing 17…Nd2, but Black has another string to his bow.

17…Rgf8

Now there is no remedy against 18…Rf2.

18.g5 Rf2 19.Qh5 Rxd2

White resigned.

RL 1.4
 Petrov

Dimitrov

Correspondence game 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 f5 5.d4 fxe4 6.Nfd2

This move is made possible by the fact that the c5 bishop is left hanging after
6…exd4? 7.Qh5+.

6…Bb6 7.Bxc6

An alternative is 7.Nxe4, intending to meet 7…d5 with 8.Bg5. Another

possibility is 7.d5, after which Black can try a piece sacrifice recommended by
Alekhine with 7…Nf6!? 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Be2 d5. Black’s mighty central pawns
constitute compensation for the piece; Nezhmetdinov-Mjagmarsuren, Ulan Bator
1965.

7…bxc6 8.Qh5+ Kf8 9.Qxe5 Nf6 10.f3

10.0-0 Ba6 11.Re1 was played in Yates-Rabinovich, Baden-Baden 1925, the

stem game of this system.

10…exf3 11.Nxf3 Ba6 12.Be3 Qe8 13.Nbd2 Qf7 14.Qf4 Re8 15.Ne5 Qe6
16.Ne4 d6 17.Ng5 Qd5 18.Nd7+ Ke7 19.Nxf6 gxf6 20.Ne4 Rhf8 21.Kf2!

After 21.Kd2?, 21…Qb5 was very annoying, while 21.0-0-0? was impossible in
view of 21…Qxa2, of course.

21…Qb5 22.Rhe1 Qxb2+ 23.Kg1 Kd8

Bad is 23…d5? in view of 24.Nc5 Bxc5 25.Qxc7+.

24.Bf2 d5
25.Nd6

A nice move to secure the draw. 25.Nxf6 Rxe1+ (25…Re2? 26.Qh6!) 26.Rxe1 is
the only way for White to play for a win, as 26…Qxc3? 27.Qg4 loses at once.

25…Rxe1+

After 25…cxd6? 26.Qxd6+ Kc8 27.Qxc6+ Kd8 28.Qxd5+ Kc8 29.Qc6+ Kd8
White plays the winning 30.Bh4.

26.Rxe1 Qa3!

26…Qxc3? runs into 27.Qh6, and wins.

27.Nf5

27.Re8+ Rxe8 28.Qxf6+ immediately leads to a draw.

27…Bd3 28.Ne7 Be4

28…Qxe7 29.Rxe7 Kxe7 turns out to be just playing for a loss after 30.Bh4.

29.Nxc6+ Kd7 30.Nb4 Qxc3 31.Rxe4! dxe4 32.Qf5+

Here a draw was agreed. White keeps perpetual check after 32…Kd8 33.Qd5+
Kc8 34.Qa8+ Kd7 35.Qd5+.

RL 1.7

Ljubojevic

Durao
Orense 1974

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.0-0 Nd4

Black tries to ease his position by swapping pieces.

5.Nxd4 Bxd4 6.c3 Bb6 7.d4 c6 8.Ba4 d6 9.Na3 Bc7?!

Knowing that 9…exd4 10.cxd4 Ne7 11.Bg5 f6 12.Bf4 0-0 13.d5 cxd5 14.Bb3 is
regarded as promising for White, Michael Adams preferred 9…Nf6 10.Bg5 0-0!
11.dxe5 dxe5, with reasonable prospects, in a match against Rowson, Southend
2000. The text is most certainly not an improvement on Black’s play.

10.d5 Bd7 11.dxc6 bxc6

11…Bxc6 12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13.Qg4 also favours White.

12.Nc4 Qe7 13.f4! Nf6 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.b3! Bb6+

15…Nxe4 is met by 16.Ba3 Qe6 17.Qd3, with strong pressure along the a3-d6
diagonal and the d-file.

16.Kh1 Nxe4 17.Ba3 Qe6

Suddenly Black has a threat: 18…Ng3+ 19.hxg3 Qh6+, and mate, but it is easily
parried. Other moves were no better: 17…Qh4 18.Qd3 Nf2+ 19.Rxf2 Qxf2
20.Nd6+ Kd8 21.Rf1 and 22.Nf7+, or 17…Bc5 18.Bxc5 Qxc5 19.Rxf7! Kxf7
20.Qxd7+ Kg6 21.Qg4+ Ng5 22.h4 h6 23.b4, with winning play for White.

18.Qd3! f5

After 18…Nf2+ White would have won with 19.Rxf2 Bxf2 20.Nd6+ Kd8
21.Qf3.

19.Rae1
All white pieces are now poised to strike. Black will inevitably succumb to
White’s pressure.

19…Bc7

Or 19…0-0-0 20.Nxb6+ axb6 21.Qa6+ Kc7 22.Qa7+ Kc8 23.Qxb6, with a

strong and probably winning attack.
20.Rxf5!

The demolition of the black position is starting!

20…Qxf5 21.Rxe4 0-0-0

If 21…Rd8, then 22.Qe2 Be6 23.Nxe5 Bxe5 24.Bxc6+! (and certainly not
24.Rxe5? in view of 24…Qxe5! 25.Qxe5 Rd1+, and mate!) 24…Kf7 25.g4!
(creating a flight square for the king!) 25…Qf6 26.Rxe5 Bxg4 27.Re7+ Kg8
28.Qc4+, winning.

22.Nd6+ Bxd6 23.Qa6+!

After 23.Bxd6? Be8 24.Qa6+ Kd7 things are still unclear, but the text wins.

23…Kc7 24.Qxa7+ Kc8 25.Bb5!

An elegant final move, which also covers f1! 25.Bxd6? would have been
exceedingly careless: 25…Qf1+.

After the text Black threw in the towel; he no longer sees a way out: 25…cxb5
26.Qa6+ Kc7 27.Bxd6 mate, or 25…Rdf8 26.Qa8+ Kc7 27.Qa5+! Kb7 28.Ba6+
Ka7 29.Bc8+ Kb8 30.Bxd6+ Kxc8 31.Qc7 mate.

RL 1.8

Stutzkowski

Harmonist

Berlin 1898
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bb4

The variation of Simon Alapin, who experimented with it in the 19th century. It
is a strange-looking move, as Black throws away an important tempo, but there
does not seem to be a clear way to a white advantage.

4.c3

Another good idea is 4.a3 Ba5 5.b4 Bb6 6.Bb2.

4…Ba5 5.0-0

5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 is met by 6…Qg5, and Black has counterplay. 5.Na3 Bb6
6.Nc4 Nf6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.Nfxe5 Nxe4 9.Qe2 d5 10.Nxb6 axb6 11.d3 Qd6 is also
unclear.

5…Nge7 6.Na3

In the past, some books gave the simple pawn win 6.Bxc6 Nxc6 7.b4 Bb6 8.b5
Na5 9.Nxe5 as a refutation of the black variation, but things are not all that clear
after 9…0-0 10.d4 Qe8! 11.Nd2 f5!?, Anand-Hector, Palma the Mallorca 1989,
and Black has counterplay. Black can avoid this possibility, incidentally, by
playing 3…a6 first and only taking the bishop to b4 after 4.Ba4.

6…0-0 7.Qa4?!

Better is 7.Nc4, e.g. 7…d5 8.Nxa5 Nxa5 9.d4 dxe4 10.Nxe5 f6 11.b4!?, with
complicated play that may be slightly better for White, Kovalev-Hector, Gausdal
1990.

7…d5! 8.Bxc6 Nxc6 9.Nxe5?

This was the idea of 7.Qa4, but Black punishes the pawn grab mercilessly. Any
other move would have been better, although Black is quite comfortable by now.

9…Nxe5 10.Qxa5
10…Nf3+!

This wins by force. The white king is receiving no support whatsoever from his
legions, which are far away on the queenside.

11.Kh1

Or 11.gxf3 Qg5+ 12.Kh1 Qf4, and play continues as in the game.

11…Qd6 12.gxf3

White won’t survive 12.g3 Qh6 either, e.g.: 13.h4 Qe6 14.Kg2 Qxe4.

12…Qf4 13.Kg2 Bh3+!

The point of the sacrifice on move 10. White is going to be mated.

14.Kxh3 Qxf3+ 15.Kh4 g5+! 16.Kxg5 Kh8 17.h3 Rg8+ 18.Kh4 Qf6+ 19.Kh5
Qg5

Mate.

RL 3.1

Vul

Arkhangelsky

Moscow 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6

Played by World Champions like Alekhine, Spassky and Smyslov.

4.0-0 Bg7 5.c3 Nge7 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 d5

This thematic advance is necessary to attack the white pawn centre.

8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Re1+ Be6 10.Bg5

This is stronger than 10.Ng5 Qd6 or 10.Ne5 0-0! 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxc6 Rb8.

10…Qd6 11.Nbd2 0-0 12.Ne4 Qb4 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Qc1 Bxd4?

This is irresponsible. Black will soon feel the lack of his king’s bishop.

Correct was 14…Rfe8! 15.Bd2 Qb6 or Qb5, and it’s doubtful whether White
will get anywhere.

15.Nxd4 Qxd4 16.Qxc6 Qxb2

Catch as catch can!

17.Rad1 Qb6 18.Qc4!

The old move 18.Qc1 is also strong: 18…f6 19.Bh6 Rfe8 20.h3 Bf5? (better is
20…Bf7, although White’s position is very good after 21.Qa1) 21.Qc4 Bxe4
22.Rxe4 c6 23.Rxd5! 1-0, Minic-Dely, Belgrade 1968.

18…Qb4

White has indicated the following alternatives here: 18…f6 19.Nxf6+ Rxf6
20.Bxf6 Ne3 21.Qe4 Nxd1 22.Qxa8+ Kf7 23.Bh4, winning.

Or 18…c6 19.Rxd5!? (19.Rb1! Qa5 20.Bh6 also results in a strong attack) 19…
f5 20.Nf6+! Rxf6 21.Rxe6! Qb1+ (21…Rxe6 22.Rd8+!) 22.Rd1! Qxd1+
23.Re1+, and wins.

19.Nf6+ Kg7
19…Nxf6 costs the queen (20.Qxb4), while 19…Kh8 is refuted by 20.Nxd5!
Qxc4 21.Bf6+ Kg8 22.Ne7 mate!

20.Qc1! Nxf6

Or 20…c6 21.Re4!, with winning play, e.g. 21…Qa5 22.Bh6+! Kh8 23.Bxf8
Nxf6 24.Bb4 Qa4 25.Bc3! Qxe4 26.Bxf6+ Kg8 27.Qh6.

21.Qa1! Qe7

After 21…h6 22.Bxf6+ Kg8 23.Bh8 f6 24.Rxe6 Kxh8 25.Rxf6, or 21…Rfb8

22.Qxf6+ Kg8 23.Bh6 Qb2 24.Rd4 it is also curtains.
22.Rd7!

Black resigned.

A beautiful illustration of the power of a pin.

RL 5.7

Dvoiris

Meister

Podolsk 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4

This knight move was advocated as early as the 19th century by Briton Henry
Bird.

4.Nxd4

This is generally regarded as the best way to tackle the Bird Variation. After
4.Ba4 Bc5! or 4.Bc4 Qf6!? or 4…Nf6 Black has fewer problems to solve.

4…exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.d3

6.Qh5!? is an attempt to reinforce the white set-up. After 6…Qe7 7.d3 Nf6
8.Qh4 c6 9.Bc4 d5! 10.exd5 Nd5 it doesn’t look much like it. After 6.Bc4 must
avoid the trap 6…c6? 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+.

6…c6 7.Bc4

In Kamsky-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1990, White was successful with 7.Ba4, which

retains the pin. After 7…Ne7 8.f4 f5 (8…d5 9.f5!, and the e7 knight has no
future) 9.Bb3! d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Re1+ Black soon felt the heat.

7…d6

The obvious 7…d5 8.exd5 cxd5 yields an approximately equal position, e.g.
9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.Nd2 Ne7.

8.Qh5!? Qe7 9.Nd2 Nf6 10.Qh4 g5!?

In an earlier game Dvoiris-Meister, Soviet Union 1991, there followed 10…Be6

11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.a4 a6, with approximate equality. According to the white
player, he would have been slightly better after 11.c3!. Also note that 10…0-0?!
11.Nf3 is good for White; he is threatening 12.Bg5.

11.Qg3

After 11.Qxg5 Rg8, 12.Qh4 Rg4 13.Qh6 Rg6 14.Qh4 Rg4 leads to move
repetition, but White could maybe try the exchange sacrifice 12.Qf4!? Bh3 13.g3
Bxf1 14.Kxf1, e.g. 14…Nd7 15.Nf3 Ne5 16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Qh6 Rg6 18.Qxh7
Qf6 19.Qh5, with slightly better prospects for White, according to the white
player.

11…d5?

A nice idea, but it will be refuted. Stronger was 11…Rg8!, e.g. 12.e5 dxe5
13.Nf3 e4 14.Nxg5 h6 15.Qh4 hxg5 16.Bxg5 Rxg5 17.Qxg5, with an unclear
position, again according to Dvoiris.

12.exd5 Bd6 13.Qxg5 Rg8

This was the idea…

14.Ne4!

But this is how White refutes the black concept.

14…Rxg5 15.Bxg5

White gets enough material for the queen and besides, the black king ends up
very exposed.

15…Qc7 16.Nxf6+ Kf8 17.Rae1 Bxh2+ 18.Kh1 Be5 19.Bh6+ Ke7 20.f4

Black resigned.

RL 6.1

Pisa Ferrer

Graf

Lugano 1981

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5

The Jänisch Gambit is a popular way to counter the Spanish. White usually
reacts with 4.d3 or 4.Nc3, but in this game he plays something else.

4.d4 fxe4 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.dxe5 c6 7.Nc3!?

Speculative, but Black had better know his stuff.

7…cxb5 8.Nxe4 d5

An amusing idea from Pliester is 8…Nh6!?. After 9.Bxh6 Qh4 Black wins back
the piece!

9.exd6 Nf6
10.Qd4

Another possibility is 10.Bg5, e.g. 10…Qa5+ 11.Nc3 b4 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Nd5

Be6 (or 13…b3+!? 14.c3 Be6 15.Nc7+ Kd7, with an unclear position) 14.Qh5+
Kd8 15.0-0-0 Rg8? (this loses; 15…b3!? is a better move: 16.cxb3 Rc8+ 17.Kb1
Rc5, and things remain unclear) 16.d7! Bd6 17.Rhe1 Be5 18.Rxe5 fxe5 19.Qh4+
Kxd7 20.Qe7+ Kc6 21.Qxe6+ Kb5 22.Nc3+, and Black resigned, Glek-
Yandemirov, Soviet Union 1983.

10…Be7

Another idea is 10…Nxe4 11.Qxe4+ Kf7, e.g. 12.Bf4 Qe8 13.Be5 Bxd6
14.Qf3+ Ke6 15.0-0-0 Bxe5 16.Rhe1 Rf8 17.Rxe5+ Kxe5 18.Re1+ Kd6
19.Qg3+ Kc6 20.Qc3+ Kd7 21.Qd3+ Kc7 22.Qg3+ Kc6 23.Qc3+, and a draw by
perpetual check, Romero-De la Villa, Pamplona 1985/86.

Some books regard 10…Qd7! as a refutation of White’s piece sacrifice; an

example is 11.0-0 Nxe4 12.Re1 Qxd6 13.Qxe4+ Kf7 14.Qe8+ Kg8 15.Bg5 Qg6
16.Rad1 Qxe8 17.Rxe8 Kf7 18.Rdd8 Bd7! 19.Rxf8+ Rxf8 20.Rxd7+ Kg6, with
advantage for Black in Hergert-Grosshans, correspondence game 1989. Yet the
authoritative Nunn’s Chess Openings calls the position after 12.Re1 unclear.

11.Bg5

11.Bf4!? is another possibility.

11…Bf5

After 11…h6 12.Bh4 g5? White calmly continues with 13.0-0-0! gxh4 14.Qe5
Kf7 15.dxe7 Qxe7 16.Nd6+ Kf8 17.Qf4, and he is better: his attack constitutes
more than enough compensation for the piece.

12.0-0-0 Bxe4 13.Rhe1 Qb6?!

This is wrong! Correct is 13…Qxd6! 14.Qxd6 Bxd6 15.Rxd6 0-0 16.Bxf6 Bxg2,
with an equal position, as in Khalifman-Glek, Soviet Union 1985.

14.Rxe4 Nxe4
Or 14…Qxd4 15.Rxe7+ Kf8 16.Rxd4, with a large advantage for White.

15.Qxe4 0-0-0?!

This loses, but 15…0-0 16.Bxe7 also favours White.

16.Qg4+ Kb8

After 16…Rd7 White has the winning 17.dxe7 Qc6 18.Rd3.

17.dxe7 Rc8 18.Rd8 Qc6

Or 18…Rhxd8 19.exd8Q Rxd8 20.Bxd8 Qxd8 21.Qxg7, with a winning

endgame.

19.Bf4+ Ka8 20.Qxc8+! Qxc8 21.Bc7!

A elegant decision! Black resigned in view of 21…Re8 22.Rxc8+ Rxc8 23.Bd8.

RL 6.2

Kazansky

Muraviev

Correspondence game 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0-0 Bc5 7.Bxc6

A good move is 7.Qe2. After 7…d6 8.Qc4 Qe7 9.Nc3 White is slightly better.
With the text White is going to grab a pawn, but Black gets compensation.

7…bxc6 8.Nxe5 0-0 9.Nc3?!

9.Bg5 looks better, although Black has counterplay after 9…Qe8 10.Bxf6 Rxf6
11.Nd3 Bd4 12.c3 Bb6 13.Nd2 Ba6 14.c4 d5, Wolff-Kolev, Kiljava 1984.

9…Ba6 10.Nd3 Bd4 11.Ne2

Certainly good for Black was 11.e5 Nd5 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Qh5 Rb8 14.Rb1 Qe7
15.b3 Bxd3 16.cxd3 Qc5, Strelins-Auzins, correspondence game 1996.

11…Bb6 12.Ng3 Qe8 13.Re1?!

With this move White weakens square f2. Muraviev indicates 13.Qe2 as better.

13…Bxd3 14.cxd3 Ng4! 15.Be3

Maybe White should have tried 15.Qxg4!? after all. After 15…Bxf2+ 16.Kh1
Bxe1 17.Nf5 g6 (an alternative is 17…Rxf5!?) 18.Bh6 Bb4 19.a3 Be7 20.Nxe7+
Qxe7 21.Bxf8 Rxf8 he still has a playable position, according to Muraviev.

15…Nxf2 16.Qe2 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Qb8!

Unclear is 17…Ng4 18.Qg5.

18.Rf1 Ng4 19.Rxf8+

Or 19.Qd4 Qb6, and Black has the better position.

19…Qxf8
20.Qg5?

Now things are definitely going wrong for White. A possible try was 20.Qd4,
after which Black continues with 20…Rb8.

20…Qf2+ 21.Kh1 Qxb2 22.Rf1 Nf2+ 23.Kg1 Nxd3 24.h3

24.Nf5 is bad in view of 24…Qb6+ 25.Kh1 Nf2+, and mate.

24…Re8 25.Nh5

After 25.Nf5 Qf6 or 25.Kh2 g6 Black is still better.

25…Qd4+ 26.Kh1

After 26.Kh2 Black swaps queens with 26…Qe5+.

26…h6 27.Qg3 Rf8! 28.Rxf8+ Kxf8 29.Nxg7

Or 29.Qxc7 Nf2+ 30.Kh2 Nxe4 31.Qf4+ Kg8 32.Ng3 d5, and Black will win.

29…Nf2+ 30.Kh2 Nxe4 31.Nf5 Nxg3 32.Nxd4 c5

White resigned.

RL 6.2

Novichkov

Ivanov
Moscow 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.Qd3 Bc5 7.Nc3 d6 8.Bg5

After 8.Be3 Black can play 8…Bb6 or 8…Bb4!?.

8…0-0 9.0-0-0!? Qe8

Taking the pawn is not wise: 9…Bxf2?! 10.Rhf1 Bc5 11.Nd5, followed by
12.Nh4, with pressure.

10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Nd5 Qd8!

Although this move loses a tempo, it is still Black’s best bet. 11…Rf7?! is met
strongly by 12.g4, followed by 13.g5.

12.Bc4 Kh8 13.Nh4!? Bxf2

This is a different situation from the one on move 9; Nh4 is under attack.

14.g3 Na5 15.Rhf1 Bd4

According to Ivanov, both 15…Bc5 and 15…Bb6 are possible options.

16.Qd2!

White is going to force a draw, which is a wise decision.

16…Nxc4

After 16…Bxb2+? White goes 17.Kb1, of course.

17.Qh6

And not 17.Ng6+? Kg7, after which White is finished.

17…Rf7

Forced. Losing is 17…Qe8? 18.Ng6+ Qxg6 19.Qxf8+ Qg8 20.Qxf6+ Qg7

21.Qd8+ Qg8 22.Rf8, and the game is finished.

18.Rxd4! exd4 19.Rxf6! Qg8

Again the only move. 19…Rxf6 is met by 20.Nxf6 Qe7 21.Ng6 mate, while
19…Be6? loses in view of 20.Ng6+ (but certainly not the awful blunder
20.Rxe6? Rf1 mate!) 20…Kg8 21.Rxf7 Kxf7 (or 21…Bxf7 22.Nde7+ Qxe7
23.Nxe7+ Kh8 24.Qf6 mate) 22.Qxh7+ Ke8 23.Nxc7+.

20.Rxf7

Certainly not 20.Ng6+? in view of 20…Qxg6 21.Rxg6 Rf1 mate; 20.Ne7? is

also bad: 20…Rxe7 21.Rf8 Rg7, with advantage for Black.

20…Qxf7 21.Ng6+!

Here a draw was agreed on account of 21…Qxg6 22.Qf8+ Qg8 23.Qf6+ Qg7
24.Qd8+, and perpetual check.

RL 6.6
 Boto

Peric

Ljubuski 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3

This move from the German correspondence player Dyckhoff is regarded as the
strongest reply to 3…f5.

4…fxe4 5.Nxe4 Nf6 6.Nxf6+

After 6.Qe2 d5 7.Nxf6+ gxf6 8.d4 Bg7 9.dxe5 0-0 White still hasn’t managed to
show an advantage.

6…Qxf6 7.0-0

After 7.Qe2 Black can play 7…Be7, as after 8.Bxc6 dxc6 9.Nxe5 (or 9.Qxe5
Bg4) 9…Bf5 10.d3 0-0 11.0-0 Rae8 12.f4 Bd6 13.d4 Bxe5 14.dxe5 Qg6 15.Rf2
h5 the position is equal because of the opposite-coloured bishops; White’s extra
pawn makes little difference. Yet not all black players would like to play this: a
pawn, after all, is still a pawn!

7…Nd4?!

This move has long been regarded as quite playable, but considering the result of
the present game, it really seems rather dubious. An alternative is 7…Be7.

8.Nxd4 exd4 9.b3!?

The books give the following variation: 9.Re1+ Be7 10.Qe2 c6 11.Bd3 d6 12.b3
0-0! 13.Qxe7 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Bh3 15.gxh3 (15.Qe4 Bxg2+! 16.Qxg2 Qxe1+
17.Qg1 Qf2 is unclear) 15…Qf3+, and Black had perpetual check in Adorjan-
Parma, Moscow 1977. The text seems stronger.

9…c6 10.Re1+ Be7 11.Ba3! d6 12.Qh5+!

12…g6

After 12…Qf7 White plays the winning 13.Rxe7+!: 13…Kxe7 14.Bxd6+ Kf6
15.Qe5+ Kg6 16.Bd3+ Bf5 (or 16…Kh6 17.Be7 Qd5 18.Qf4+ g5 (18…Kh5
19.Qh4 mate) 19.Qf6+, winning) 17.g4! Bxd3 18.Qh5+ Kf6 19.g5+ Ke6
20.Re1+, and Black loses his queen.

13.Qd5! Kd8

13…Kd7 runs into the simple but very strong 14.Bb2!: 14…Kc7 15.Qe4! Re8
16.Bxd4, with a large advantage for White.

14.Bxc6! bxc6 15.Qxc6 Rb8 16.Rxe7!

Black is receiving wallop after wallop!

16…Qxe7

If 16…Kxe7, then 17.Qc7+ Bd7 18.Re1+ Kf7 19.Qxd7+ Kg8 20.Bxd6 Rd8
21.Be7! Rxd7 22.Bxf6 yields White a winning position.

17.Bxd6 Qb7 18.Qc5

Black is a rook up, but his position is lost.

18…Ra8?

This loses hopelessly. With 18…Re8 Black could have put up strong resistance:
19.Bxb8 Qxb8 20.Qxd4+ is good for White, of course: he has four pawns for the
bishop, but Black will continue to fight back for a good while yet.

19.Re1 Qb6 20.Bc7+! Qxc7 21.Qg5+

Black resigned. After 21…Kd7 22.Re7+ Kc6 23.Rxc7+ Kxc7 24.Qe5+ it is

curtains.

RL 6.11
 Ulibin

Timmerman

Cappelle la Grande 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Nxc6 Qg5
8.Qe2 Nf6 9.f4 Qxf4 10.Nxa7+ Bd7

Good for White is 10…c6 11.Nxc8 Rxc8 12.Bc4, e.g. 12…Bd6 13.g3 Qe5
14.d4! Qxd4 15.c3 Qe5 16.Be3.

11.Bxd7+ Kxd7!?

Steinitz, when allowing his king to flee into the great outdoors, used to say that
the king is a strong piece, but can the text-move be correct? The alternative 11…
Nxd7 12.Nb5 (12.d4 is also good) 12…0-0-0 13.d4 at any rate favours White.

12.Qb5+

After 12.d4 Qf5 13.Qb5+ Qxb5 14.Nxb5 c6 15.Nc3 Bb4 Black has sufficient
counterplay for the pawn; Adams-Lautier, Terrassa 1991. The same goes for
12.Nb5 c6 13.Nc3 Bd6.

12…Ke6 13.Qc4+

This hardly yields anything. Crucial for the correctness of the black variation is
13.Qxb7 Bd6 14.Qb3+ Kd7 15.Qf7+.

13…Kd7 14.Qb5+ Ke6 15.Qb3+ Kd7 16.Nb5

After 16.Qb5+ White simply has perpetual check, but it is understandable that
with his extra pawn and the black king in the centre, he doesn’t want to go for it
yet. White can also play for a win with 16.Qxb7.

16…Bc5!?

16…c6?! is strongly met by 17.Nd4, but 16…Re8!? is a good alternative:

17.Qh3+ Kd8 18.Rf1 Qe5 19.Rf5 Qe6, with an unclear position, according to
Ulibin and Lisenko.
17.Qh3+

17.Qf7+ Be7 18.Nd4 Qe5 is unclear and 17.d4 is met by 17…e3!? 18.Rf1
(18.Bxe3? Rhe8) 18…Qh4+, e.g. 19.g3 Qxh2 20.dxc5 Qxg3+, and Black’s has
perpetual check.

17…Qg4!

Black is a pawn down, but he is not afraid to swap queens; he still has enough
counterplay.

18.Qxg4+ Nxg4 19.Nc3

After 19.h3 the knight comes back into the game via h6 and f5.

19…Rhf8! 20.Nxe4 Rfe8!?

Amusing; Black wants more and plays a move that loses a tempo! But the text
does prevent the rook swap.

After 20…Rae8 21.d3 Nf2 22.Rf1 Nxe4 23.Rxf8 Rxf8 24.dxe4 Rf2 25.b4 Bb6
26.Bb2 Rxc2 27.Rd1+ Ke6 28.Rd2 Rc4 the endgame is roughly equal, according
to the Ulibin-Lisenko analysis.

21.d3 Nf2 22.Rf1 Nxe4 23.dxe4 Rxe4+

24.Kd2 Kc6

This leads to an equal endgame. Worth considering was 24…Rae8!? 25.Rf7+

Kc6, when according to Ulibin and Lisenko, Black is slightly better. 26.Rxg7 is
met by 26…Rd8+ 27.Kc3 Bd4+ 28.Kd3 Bxg7+ 29.Kxe4 Rd1, with the threat of
30…Bh6, although it is very doubtful whether Black will ever manage to win the
endgame.

25.Kc3 Re2 26.Rf7 Rxg2 27.Bf4 Bd6 28.Bxd6 cxd6 29.Re1 Rxa2 30.Ree7
Ra7 31.Rxg7 Rxh2 32.Rc7+ Kb6 33.Rcd7 Kc6

Draw.
RL 6.11

Mainka

Thorhallsson

Gausdal 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Nxc6 Qg5
8.Qe2 Nf6 9.f4 Qxf4 10.d4

The third possibility besides the text and 10.Nxa7+ – 10.Ne5+ – leads to difficult
play with roughly equal chances after 10…c6 11.d4 Qh4+ 12.g3 Qh3 13.Bc4.

10…Qd6 11.Nxa7+?

Correct here is 11.Ne5+ c6 12.Bc4 Be6 13.Bf4 or 13.c3, both with roughly equal
prospects, Kamsky-Piket, Groningen 1995.

11…c6
12.Bf4

White had probably not realised till now that after 12.Nxc8 Qb4+ 13.c3 Qxb5
14.Qxb5 cxb5 15.Nb6 Ra6 the white knight is trapped! A vicious joke that a few
grandmasters have also fallen for!

12…Qxf4 13.Nxc6 bxc6

13…Bd6!? 14.Ne5+ Ke7 probably also favours Black, although the large
number of pawns makes the situation less clear.

14.Bxc6+ Kd8

Also good is 14…Bd7!? 15.Bxa8 Bb4+ 16.c3 0-0, with advantage for Black.

15.Bxa8 Bg4?

Now the tide turns! Correct was 15…Qb8! 16.Bc6 (or 16.Bxe4 Qxb2) 16…
Qxb2 17.0-0 Qxd4+ 18.Kh1 Kc7, with advantage for Black.

16.Qd2 Bb4

After 16…Qxd2+ 17.Kxd2 the endgame favours White because of his cartload
of pawns.

17.c3 e3 18.Qc2 Ke7 19.Bf3! Bxf3 20.gxf3 Qxd4

20…Qxf3 21.Rf1 Qc6 22.0-0-0 also favours White.

21.0-0

Now White is definitely safe, and Black loses his Bb4. It’s all in the game!

21…Qc4

Or 21…Qc5 22.a3 Ba5 23.b4.

22.Qa4 Nd5 23.cxb4 Rd8 24.Rac1 Qh4 25.Qa7+ Kf8 26.Qc5+ Kg8 27.Qc4
Qg5+ 28.Kh1 Kh8 29.Rcd1 h5 30.Qe4
Black resigned.

RL 6.14

Grodzensky

Mallee

Correspondence game 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Nxc6 Qd5

Weak is 7…bxc6?! 8.Bxc6+ Bd7 9.Qh5+ Ke7 10.Qe5+ Be6 11.f4! Nh6 (11…
exf3 is met by 12.0-0!) 12.f5! Nxf5 13.Rf1! Nd4 14.Qc5+, and Black resigned,
Liberzon-A.Geller, Leningrad 1961.

8.c4 Qd6 9.Nxa7+!

9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qe5+ Qxe5 11.Nxe5+ c6 12.Ba4 (12.Nxc6? a6 13.Ba4 Bd7 costs

a piece) also yields White a slight advantage, Timman-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

9…Bd7

After 9…c6 10.Nxc8 Rxc8 11.Ba4 Black’s compensation for the two pawns is
dubious.

10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.Qh5+

The alternative is 11.Nb5 Nf6 12.d4 exd3 13.0-0 Bc5, with an unclear position.
11…g6 12.Qe5+ Kf7 13.Nb5

Capturing the rook is very risky: 13.Qxh8?! Nf6 14.Nb5 c6 15.Nc3 Re8 16.b3
Bc5 17.Qxe8+ Kxe8 18.0-0 Qd3, with good prospects for Black, Kavalek-
Möhring, Marianske Lazne 1962.

13…c6 14.Qd4!

An important finesse, as we will see. After 14.Nc3 Nf6, by the way, Black would
have had good compensation for the pawns.

14…Qe7

In view of what follows, one wonders whether Black should not have gone for
the queen swap. After 14…Rd8 15.Qxd7+ Rxd7 16.Nc3 Nf6 White will not find
it easy to make his extra pawns count.

15.Qxh8

Now this capture is correct!

15…Nf6 16.b3! Rd8 17.Bb2

The immediate 17.Ba3 is met by 17…Qd7 18.Qxf8+ Rxf8 19.Bxf8 cxb5 20.Bh6
Qd3, with an unclear position, Heemsoth-Mallee, correspondence game 1983/84.

17…Bg7
18.Ba3!

Strong! In earlier correspondence games, 18.Qxd8?! Qxd8 19.Na3 Qd3 turned

out to favour Black.

18…Qd7 19.Nd6+ Ke6 20.Qxd8 Qxd8 21.Nxb7 Qb6

21…Qd4 22.0-0 or 21…Qc7 22.Nc5+ Kf7 23.Bb2 is also good for White.

22.Nc5+ Kf7 23.Na4

23.0-0 is also good.

23…Qa5 24.Bb2 Ng4 25.Bc3 Bxc3

Another example from the world of correspondence chess: 25…Qh5 26.h3 Kg8
27.Bxg7 Kxg7 28.Nb2! Ne5 29.0-0 Nf3+ 30.Kh1 Qe5?! (worth trying was 30…
Nxd2) 31.gxf3 Qf5 (or 31…Qxb2 32.fxe4, and White is a legion of pawns
ahead) 32.Nd1 Qxh3+ 33.Kg1 exf3 34.Ne3, and Black was finished, Müller-
Sauermann, correspondence game 1989/91.

26.Nxc3 e3 27.fxe3 Nxe3 28.Ke2! Nxg2 29.Raf1+ Kg7 30.Kd3

And Black overstepped the time-limit! This can also happen in correspondence
games: no reply in hopeless positions like this or using more days than allowed,

RL 7.2

Romero

Braga
Leon 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6

The Berlin Defence, reintroduced at the highest level by Vladimir Kramnik in

his match against Kasparov, London 2000.

4.0-0 Bc5

The second main variation besides 4…Nxe4; it can also arise out of the classical
line 3…Bc5.

5.Nxe5

A tactical turn to exploit the position of the black bishop. The most common
move, incidentally, is 5.c3, to build a strong centre.

5…Nxe5 6.d4 c6

More usual is 6…a6, which leaves White a choice between 7.Be2, 7.dxe5 and
the main continuation 7.Ba4. The don’t-take-any-pieces approach can be
maintained for one more move with 7…b5. But then 8.dxe5 Nxe4 9.Qd5? Bb7!
10.Qxb7 c6 is a vicious trap: the queen is caught with 11…Ra7.

7.f4!?

After 7.dxe5 Nxe4 8.Bd3 d5 9.exd6 Nf6 10.Re1+ Be6 11.Nc3 White is slightly
better. The text doesn’t look bad, but is probably not really stronger.

7…Qb6

Good for White is 7…cxb5?! 8.fxe5. With 7…Ng6 Black can stay a piece up,
but after 8.dxc5 cxb5 9.e5 Ne4 10.Qe2 Nxc5 11.f5 White has good play. A
playable idea is 7…d5!? 8.dxc5 Nxe4, as in a later game Romero Holmes-
Winants, Wijk aan Zee 1991.

8.dxc5 Qxc5+ 9.Kh1 Neg4

After 9…Nxe4?! 10.fxe5 Qxb5 11.Nd2! Nxd2 12.Bxd2 0-0 13.Bc3, followed by
14.Qh5, White would have a fine attacking position.

10.e5!?
10…Nf2+

A sharp winning attempt. After 10…Qxb5 11.Nc3 Qc4 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Re1+
Kd8 14.Qd6 White would be slightly better.

11.Rxf2 Qxf2 12.exf6 cxb5 13.Nc3 d5?

Now things go terribly wrong. Black should simply have castled in order to play
his trump card, 14…Re8 15.Bd2 Re2!, after 14.Nd5. The endgame after 16.Qxe2
Qxe2 17.Re1 Qxe1+ 18.Bxe1 only offers prospects for Black.

14.Be3!

A surprising intermediate move.

14…Qh4

After 14…Qxe3 White plays 15.Nxd5 Qc5 16.fxg7, and wins.

15.fxg7 Rg8 16.Nxd5 Rxg7

There are no more good moves; after 16…Qd8, 17.Qd4 wins.

17.Nc7+ Kf8

Or 17…Ke7 18.Bc5+.

18.Qd6+ Kg8 19.Bf2!

Black resigned in view of 19…Qxf2 20.Qd8 mate.

RL 7.3

Karaklajic
 Vasiukov

Bela Crkva 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.c3 0-0 6.d4 Bb6 7.a4 a5 8.Bg5 d6
9.dxe5

An important consideration is that White does not win a pawn with 9.Bxc6 bxc6
10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8 Rxd8 12.Nxe5, as Black replies 12…Ba6 13.Re1 Nxe4
14.Be3 Bxe3 15.fxe3, with a roughly equal position. With 9.Re1 or 9.Na3 White
can maintain the central tension.

9…Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qf3 h6 12.Rd1

This intermediate move gives Black a surprising chance. Good for equality was
12.Bxf6 or 12.Be3.
12…hxg5! 13.Rxd8 Rxd8

Black has sufficient compensation for the queen; he controls the d-file and the
important white square f2 is weak.

14.h3

Bad is 14.Bd3? in view of 14…Bg4 15.Qg3 Nxe4! 16.Qxg4 Nxf2!, while

14.Na3 is met strongly by 14…Rd2.

14…g4! 15.Qe2

After 15.hxg4 Bxg4 16.Qg3 Rd1+ 17.Kh2 Be6! 18.f3 Bg1+ the game is finished.

15…gxh3 16.gxh3?!

Now Black has an open field. White should have tried to throw up a defensive
line with 16.Nd2. After 16…Ng4 17.Rf1 c6 18.Bc4 hxg2 19.Kxg2 Rd6 Black
still has a strong attack (Vasiukov).

16…Bxh3 17.Kh2 Bg4! 18.f3

18.Qc2 is met by the deadly 18…Rd1.

18…Be6 19.Na3 Nh5!

Now Black has magnificent attacking play.

20.Bc4 Nf4 21.Qc2 Rd6! 22.Rd1

After 22.Bxe6 Rxe6 23.Nc4 Bc5, followed by …Raa6!, a second black rook
enters the fray via the sixth rank!

22…Rad8 23.Rxd6 Rxd6 24.Bxe6 Rxe6 25.Nc4 Rh6+ 26.Kg3 Rg6+ 27.Kh2

After 27.Kh4 Black plays the decisive 27…Bc5!, followed by 28…Be7 mate!

27…Bg1+ 28.Kh1 f6

A little breather; White has nowhere to go anyway.

29.Qd2 Bc5 30.Kh2

Or 30.Ne3 Rh6+ 31.Kg1 Rh3, and it’s finished (Vasiukov).

30…Rh6+ 31.Kg3 Bg1!

Back to the square it came from; but now the king is on g3!

32.Ne3 Rh3+ 33.Kg4 Rh2 34.Qd8+

Or 34.Qc1 Bxe3 35.Qxe3 Rg2+ 36.Kf5 (36.Kh4 g5 mate) 36…Rg5+.

34…Kh7 35.Nf1 Rg2+

White resigned.

RL 7.3

Bologan
 Piket

Biel 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.c3 0-0 6.d4 Bb6 7.Bg5

7.dxe5 Nxe4 8.Qd5 Nc5 9.Bg5 would also yield White a slightly better position.

7…h6 8.Bh4 d6 9.a4

After the swap 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Nbd2 White is slightly better, but
11.Qxd8?! Rxd8 12.Nxe5 g5 13.Bg3 Ba6 14.Re1 Nxe4 15.Nxc6 Re8 gives
Black good play for the pawn.

9…a5 10.Re1

Just as on the previous move, 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Qxd8?! Rxd8
yields Black good play.

10…exd4

Another possibility is 10…Bg4.

11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd4 Re8! 13.Nd2

After 13.Nxc6 Qd7 14.Bxf6 (or 14.Nd4 Nxe4) 14…Qxc6 15.Bd4 Rb8 16.Bxb6
Rxb6 17.Qc2 Qb7 Black has no problems (Piket).

13…c5 14.Nc2

An alternative was 14.Nb5.

14…Bb7?!
Stronger for Black is to go 14…g5 first and postpone Bb7 until after 15.Bg3, e.g.
16.e5 dxe5 17.Bxe5 Qd5 18.Nf3 Qc6, and Black’s bishops constitute sufficient
compensation for the slightly compromised pawn position, according to both
Bologan and Piket.

15.f4 c4+ 16.Nd4

After 16.Kh1? Black has the possibility of 16…Nxe4! 17.Bxd8 Nf2+ 18.Kg1
Nxd1+.

16…Rb8 17.Re3 Ba8 18.Qc2?

Correct was 18.Rb1, after which the pin on Nf6 remains annoying.
18…Nd5!

Surprising and strong!

19.Bxd8

After 19.Rh3 Piket would have played 19…Nb4 20.Qd1 Bxd4+ 21.cxd4 Qd7.

19…Nxe3 20.Qb1 Rbxd8 21.h3

After 21.Kh1 the reply 21…f5! is also very strong: 22.Nxf5 Nxf5 23.exf5 Re2
24.Nf3 Rde8 25.f6 R8e4. Maybe 21.b3 would have been White’s best chance.
Thus Piket.

21…f5! 22.Qa2

22.Nxf5? Nxf5+ now costs a piece!

22…Bxe4 23.Nxc4 Bd5

The black pieces reign supreme.

24.b3 Bxd4 25.cxd4 Nxg2 26.Qf2

Or 26.Rf1 Re6 27.Qc2 Rg6 28.Kh2 Re8, e.g. 29.Qxf5 Nxf4!.

26…Re6 27.Nxa5 Rde8 28.Nc4 Rg6 29.Kh2

29.Kf1 is met by 29…Bxc4+ 30.bxc4 Ne3+, and wins.

29…Nxf4 30.Rg1

Or 30.Qxf4 Re2+, and mate.

30…Rxg1

White resigned. 31.Kxg1 Nxh3+ loses the queen, and after 31.Qxg1 Re2+
32.Kg3 g5! White is also finished.
RL 7.3

Kavalek

Spassky

Solingen 1977

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.0-0 0-0 6.d4 Bb6 7.Re1 d6 8.Bg5 h6
9.Bh4 exd4 10.Bxc6

After 10.cxd4 Black’s best bet is probably 10…Bg4, although the position after
11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nc3 is not overly clear. 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.cxd4 g5 12.Bg3
Nxe4 13.Rxe4 c6 14.Ba4 f5 is equally unclear; Black wins back the piece with
…f4.

10…dxc3!

10…bxc6 11.Nxd4 is good for White.

11.Nxc3

11.Ba4 was impossible in view of 11…cxb2, of course.

11…bxc6 12.Qa4 Qd7!

Weak is 12…g5?! in view of 13.Nxg5! hxg5 14.Bxg5, e.g. 14…Bxf2+ 15.Kh1!

(and not 15.Kxf2? Ng4+, of course) 15…Bxe1 16.Rxe1 Re8 17.Rf1 Re6 18.Qd4
c5 19.Qf2, and Black is in deep trouble because of the pin on Nf6. 12…Bd7?!
won’t really work either: 13.e5!, with advantage for White.

13.Bxf6?!

Obvious enough, but the half-open g-file will turn out to be a dangerous invasion
route for Black. Safer was 13.Rad1.

13…gxf6 14.h3?!

A better idea is 14.Rad1, and White may be able to threaten e4-e5.

14…Kh8! 15.Ne2 Rg8 16.Nf4 Bb7

Now Black is better: he is exerting pressure on the white kingside and has two
strong bishops.

17.Nh4 Rae8 18.Nf5 Kh7 19.Qc2 Re5 20.Qd2 c5 21.Nd5?

Threatening mate and to win the queen with 22.Nf6. But things are not that
simple! Correct was 21.Kh2.

21…Rxf5!

The harsh refutation!

22.exf5 Qxf5 23.Red1

The knight must not yield: 23.Ne3 Qxh3 or 23.Nf4 Rxg2+! 24.Nxg2 Qf3 25.Kf1
Qxg2+ 26.Ke2 Ba6+ 27.Ke3 c4+, and it’s all over.

23…c4!

Threatening 24…Qh3. After the immediate 23…Qxh3? White would have saved
himself with 24.Qd3+. 23…Rg5?! 24.Ne3, with an unclear position, was also
less good.

24.Kh1 Rg5

White resigned. After both 25.Ne3 Qxh3+ and 25.Nf4 Rxg2! it’s curtains.
RL 7.4

Shamkovich

Blohm

Santa Monica 1976

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Re1

These days, white players almost exclusively go for 5.d4.

5…Nd6 6.Nxe5 Be7 7.Qh5!?

An interesting move, although objectively speaking no stronger than alternatives

like 7.Bd3 or 7.Bf1.

7…0-0

The best move. Very annoying for Black is 7…g6? 8.Qh6 Nxb5 9.Qg7 Rf8
10.Ng4 f5 11.Nf6+ Rxf6 12.Qxf6. A well-known example with 7…Nxe5 is the
game Ljubojevic-Calvo, Lanzarote 1973: 8.Qxe5 Nxb5? (better is 8…0-0!)
9.Qxg7! Rf8 10.a4 Nd6 11.Nc3 Nf5 (11…c6 12.Qf6 Nc4 13.d3) 12.Nd5! f6
13.Qxh7 d6 14.Qg6+, and Black resigned.

8.Bd3 g6

Now White can sacrifice. Safer is 8…f5!.

9.Nxg6!? fxg6 10.Bxg6 hxg6 11.Qxg6+ Kh8 12.b3!

White has perpetual check, of course, but is there more in it for him? 12.Re3 Nf5
13.Rh3+ Bh4 yields nothing, at any rate.

12…Bf6?

Correct was 12…Nf5! 13.Bb2+ Bf6, and White will have to settle for a draw via
perpetual check: 14.Re3! Nxe3 (risky is 14…Bxb2? 15.Rh3+ Nh4 16.Qh6+ Kg8
17.Rg3+ Kf7 18.Qh5+, with a strong attack) 15.Qh6+.

According to an analysis by Shamkovich.

13.Re3 Bg7
14.Bb2?

An inaccuracy! Correct was 14.Rh3+! Kg8 15.Qh7+ Kf7 16.Bb2!, and Black is
helpless, e.g. 16…Qg5 17.Bxg7 Qxg7 18.Rf3+.

14…Rf6! 15.Rh3+ Kg8 16.Qh7+ Kf8 17.Bxf6 Bxf6?

Now White wins after all. Black should have gone 17…Qxf6!, which after
18.Rf3 Qxf3 19.gxf3 Bxa1 20.c3 results in a none too common and unclear
position.

18.Rg3 Ne7 19.Nc3

Threatening 20.Nd5.

19…Qe8 20.Qh6+

After 20.Nd5? Qf7 Black is safe.

20…Kf7 21.Re1!

Now White is threatening 22.Qh7.

21…Qh8 22.Rxe7+!

The last barricades are razed.

22…Kxe7 23.Nd5+ Ke6

Or 23…Kd8 24.Rg8+! Qxg8 25.Qxf6+, and mate, or else 23…Kf7 24.Qg6+ Ke6
25.Nxf6, with winning play.

24.Nxc7+ Ke7 25.Nd5+ Ke6 26.Nf4+ Kf5

After 26…Kf7 White wins with 27.Qg6+ Kf8 28.Qd3, with the double threat of
29.Ng6+ and 29.Qd6+.

27.Qg6+ Kxf4 28.d4! Bxd4 29.Qg5+

Black resigned in view of 29…Ke4 30.Rg4 mate. A fine king hunt, despite
inaccuracies on both sides!

RL 7.4

Halprin

Pillsbury

Munich 1900

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.dxe5

A little joke, as White’s next move wins back the piece. These days players
prefer 6.Bxc6.

6…Nxb5 7.a4

The point of the previous move.

7…d6

Returning the piece with 7…Nbd4 is solid play.

8.e6!?

This move leads to interesting complications.

8…fxe6
Less good is 8…Bxe6?! in view of 9.axb5 Ne5 10.Nd4 Be7 11.f4 and 12.f5.

9.axb5 Ne7 10.Nc3 Ng6

10…Nf5 has been recommended here, but this can be met strongly by 11.Nd4
Qf6 12.b6! cxb6 13.Ndb5 Qd8 14.Ne4 d5 15.Bf4.

An alternative may be 10…Ng8, in order simply to put the knight on f6.

11.Ng5 Be7 12.Qh5 Bxg5 13.Bxg5 Qd7 14.b6!

The game Wolf-Pillsbury, from an earlier round of the same tournament, saw
14.Ra3? 0-0 15.Ne4 Nf4, and White had no compensation for his pawn. The text
is a considerable improvement.

14…cxb6 15.Nd5!

The point of the previous move. Because White is threatening both 16.Nxb6 and
16.Ne7, Black is virtually forced to take the knight.

15…exd5 16.Rfe1+ Kf8

After 16…Kf7? 17.Re7+ Qxe7 18.Bxe7 Kxe7 Black is fine in a purely material
sense, but he hasn’t fully developed his pieces, so that 19.Re1+ is very annoying
for him.

17.Ra3 Ne5

There is probably nothing stronger. After, for example, 17…Kg8 18.Rf3 Qb5
19.Re7 Be6 White simply plays 20.Rxe6, and his attack continues.

18.Rxe5 dxe5 19.Rf3+ Kg8 20.Bh6!

Great. The point of the previous moves. Black cannot take: 20…gxh6? 21.Rg3+
Kf8 22.Qxe5 Rg8 23.Qf6+.

20…Qe7

Now White will have to go for perpetual check. The same, by the way, goes for
20…e4 21.Rg3 Kf8 (but not 21…g6? 22.Rxg6+, and White wins) 22.Bxg7+
Qxg7 23.Rxg7 Kxg7 24.Qe5+ Kg8 25.Qe8+. Thus a recent analysis by the
Englishman Hinton.

21.Bxg7

And not 21.Rg3? Be6, and all liquidations favour Black.

21…Kxg7 22.Rg3+ Kf8

With 22…Bg4?! Black can try to prevent perpetual check, but this is risky: after
23.Rxg4+ Kf8 24.Qh6+ Ke8 25.Rg7 Qf7 (25…Qc5? 26.Qe6+, and mate)
26.Rxf7 Kxf7 White still has several possibilities for perpetual check, and the
endgame after 27.Qd6 probably even favours White.

23.Rf3+ Kg7 24.Rg3+

Draw.

RL 7.4

Lau

Smagin
Berlin 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 bxc6 7.dxe5 Nb7

A sideline. 6…dxc6 7.dxe5 Ne4 (Westerinen) and 7…Nf5 (Kramnik) have

enjoyed a revival in the last few years.

8.Qe2 Be7 9.Re1 0-0 10.b3

Well-known is 10.Nc3 Nc5 11.Be3 Ne6 12.Rad1, with a slight advantage for
White.

10…Nc5 11.Bb2 Ne6 12.Nc3 f6 13.Rad1

After 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.Na4 Bxb2 15.Nxb2 Qf6 the position is roughly equal.

13…Qe8 14.exf6 Bxf6 15.Na4?!

Now Black takes the initiative. Correct was 15.Ne5.

15…Qg6! 16.Bxf6

16.Ne5 was still a possibility.

16…Qxf6 17.Qc4

If White tries to swap queens with 17.Qe5, Black replies 17…Qg6.

17…Kh8 18.Kh1?

A useless move. After 18.Nc5!? things would still have been unclear – after
18…Nf4 White has 19.Ne4.

18…Nf4

Threatening 19…Nxg2.

19.Ne5 d6 20.Nd3
20.Nxc6 is also met by 20…Nxg2!.
20…Nxg2 21.Kxg2

Giving Black a chance to end on a high note. After 21.Rg1 he could still have
put up a fight.

21…Bh3+! 22.Kxh3

Or 22.Kh1 Qf3+, and mate, or 22.Kg1 Qg6+, and it’s over.

22…Qf3+ 23.Kh4 g5+!

White resigned in view of 24.Kxg5 Rf5+ and 25…Rh5 mate.

RL 8.6

Sveshnikov

Volzhin

Erevan 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6

Morphy already played this move halfway the 19th century, but it is still
regarded as the most flexible defence.

4.Bxc6
The much-played Exchange Variation, in which White gives up the bishop pair
to create a pawn majority on the kingside.

4…dxc6 5.0-0

After Nxe5 Black always has Qd4.

5…Ne7

Black can choose from several main lines here, such as 5…Bg4, 5…Qd6 and
5…f6.

6.Nxe5 Qd4 7.Qh5

After 7.Nf3 Qxe4 8.Re1 Qg6 9.Ne5 Qf5 10.d4 Be6 11.Nc3 h5 Black is not bad
either.

7…g6 8.Nf3

8.Qg5 Bg7 9.Nf3 (or 9.Nd3 f5!? 10.e5 (10.exf5 Bxf5) 10…Qg4) 9…Qxe4
10.Re1 Qb4 11.c3 Qd6 12.d4 h6 is not dangerous for Black either, Adorjan-Ree,
Wijk aan Zee 1974.

8…Qxe4 9.Qa5

Black needn’t fear 9.Nc3 Qf5! (after 9…Qxc2?!, 10.Qe5 is annoying) 10.Qxf5
Bxf5 either.

9…Bg4

This is probably the strongest move. The continuations 9…b6 10.Qc3 and 9…
Qf4 10.d3 Qd6 11.Nbd2 favour White.

10.Re1

10.Qc3?! Rg8 11.Ng5 Qf5 12.Nxh7? Bg7 is good for Black, but 10.d3!? is a
good alternative: 10…Qf5 11.Qxf5 Bxf5, with slightly better play for White,
according to the Englishman Kinsman.

10…Qd5 11.Qc3?!
A risky move! White would have been wiser to allow perpetual check: 11.Qxc7
Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qxf3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+, Ljubojevic-Ivanchuk, Moscow 1994.

11…Bxf3!

A promising exchange sacrifice. After 11…Rg8?!, 12.Ne5, with the idea of 12…
Bg7 13.Qb4!, would have been annoying.

12.Qxh8 Qg5 13.g3 Qh5 14.Qf6 0-0-0 15.d3 Bg7! 16.Qxf7?!

16.Qxe7? was impossible, of course, in view of 16…Qh3, and mate, but

16.Qh4!? was stronger. Nevertheless, after 16…Qxh4 17.gxh4 Nf5 Black would
still have compensation for the exchange, despite the queen swap.

16…Bd5 17.Qxe7

After 17.Qf4 Nf5 Black has a strong attack.

17…Qf3 18.Kf1

After 18.Re4 Bd4! 19.Be3 Bxe3 20.fxe3 Qd1+ 21.Kg2 Qxc2+ 22.Kh3 Bxe4
23.Qxe4 Qxb2 the white position is utterly destroyed.

18…Qg2+ 19.Ke2 Bf3+ 20.Kd2

After 20.Ke3? Bh6+ the game is finished at once.

20…Qxf2+ 21.Re2 Bh6+ 22.Kc3 Qd4+ 23.Kb3

23…Bd5+?!

An unfortunate oversight by Black in time-trouble! Simple and strong was 23…

Bxc1!, e.g. 24.Nc3 Bd5+ 25.Nxd5 Qxb2+ 26.Kc4 cxd5+ 27.Kc5 Qb6 mate.

24.c4 Qxd3+ 25.Nc3 Bxc4+ 26.Ka4

26.Ka3? Bf8 costs the queen.

26…Bb5+ 27.Kb3 Bc4+ 28.Ka4 Bb5+?

And here a draw was agreed, as Black keeps perpetual check. After the game it
was discovered, however, that 28…Bf8! wins: 29.Qe4 Qd6! 30.a3 Qd7!
(Yakovich) 31.Rd2 Bd5 32.Qe2 c5+ 33.Ka5 b6+ 34.Kxa6 Qc6, and mate follows
soon! Oops!

RL 8.8

Polekov

Beradze

Soviet Union 1967

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0

This move, discovered by the Dutchman Barendregt, was taken up by Fischer

and initiated a revival of the Exchange Variation in the ’60s.
5…Bg4 6.h3 h5

A very difficult variation. White cannot take on g4 for the moment, but after a
few preparatory moves this will be a threat. At each move, both players must
weigh up whether it’s safe to take or not.

7.c3

The main variation continued with 7.d3.

7…Qd3!?

Other moves are 7…c5 and 7…Qf6.

8.hxg4

An alternative is 8.Re1; after 8…Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Qxf3 10.gxf3 0-0-0 11.Kf1 Be7
12.Ke2 Bg5 13.Na3 White is slightly better.

8…hxg4 9.Nxe5

9.Nh2? is met strongly by 9…g3!, while 9.Ng5? is refuted by 9…Bc5 10.Qxg4

Rh1+! 11.Kxh1 Qxf1+ 12.Kh2 Nf6, winning.

9…Bd6 10.Nxg4?

White wants to win! He should have allowed perpetual check, however:

10.Nxd3 Bh2+ 11.Kh1 Bd6+.

10…Nf6! 11.e5

Or 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.e5 Bc5! 13.Re1 0-0-0, and the black attack on the white
king position should strike home.

11…Nxg4 12.Qxg4

After 12.exd6 Black has 12…Qh7.

12…Rh1+! 13.Kxh1 Qxf1+ 14.Kh2 Bxe5+ 15.f4 Bxf4+ 16.g3 Ke7!

This beautiful king move is decisive.

17.Qh3 Qf2+ 18.Kh1 Bxg3 19.d4 Rh8!

White resigned.

RL 8.8

Alvarez

Lalic

Toulouse 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5 7.d3 Qf6 8.Nbd2
Ne7 9.Re1 Ng6 10.hxg4?

Extremely risky! Better is 10.d4.

10…hxg4 11.Nh2

After 11.g3 Black does not take on f3, but plays 11…Bc5!, e.g. 12.d4 Bb6
13.Nh2 Rxh2! 14.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 15.Kh1 0-0-0, and mate.

11…Bc5!
11…Rxh2? 12.Kxh2 Qxf2 is too rash in view of 13.Nc4 Nh4 14.Qxg4 Qxe1
15.Nxe5 Rd8 16.Bg5 Qxa1 17.Bxd8.

12.Ndf3

12.d4 won’t help either: 12…Bxd4 13.Ndf3 gxf3 14.Nxf3 Bb6 15.Bg5 Qe6
16.a4 f6 17.Be3 Rd8 18.Qe2 Qg4 19.Rad1 Rxd1 20.Qxd1 Nh4 21.Nxh4 Qxh4
22.Kf1 Qxe4, and White resigned, Fressinet-Kazhgaleev, Paris 1996.

12…gxf3 13.Nxf3 Rh5! 14.Be3 Nf4! 15.Kf1

Or 15.Bxc5 Qg6 16.g3 Qh7, and it’s all over.

15…Rh1+ 16.Ng1 Qh4 17.d4

Or 17.Bxc5 Qh2, and mate.

17…Bxd4

White resigned.

RL 8.8

Nataf

Anic

Enghien 1997
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5 7.d3 Qf6 8.Nbd2
Ne7 9.Re1 Ng6 10.d4 Bd6

After 10…exd4? White plays 11.e5!. 10…0-0-0? is no good either: 11.hxg4

hxg4 12.Nh2 Rxh2 13.Qxg4 check!

11.hxg4 hxg4 12.Nh2

Good for Black is 12.g3 gxf3 13.Nxf3 Qe6! 14.Ng5 Qd7 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Bf4
Qe7 17.Nf3 0-0-0, Prié-Anic, Budapest 1993.

12…Rxh2!

12…exd4? is met by 13.e5! again.

13.Qxg4!

This position has occurred on many boards. Black must play accurately to
prevent finding himself worse. 13.Kxh2? instead of the text is very bad: 13…
Qxf2 yields Black a winning attack.

13…Qh4

Good for White is 13…Rh4 14.Qf5, but 13…Rh7 may be an idea – White
should then play 14.Nf3, as 14.Qf5? is met by 14…Qh4.

14.Qxh4 Rxh4 15.Nf3

15…Rh5!? 16.Nxe5

With 16.c3 White might have maintained a slight advantage.

16…Nxe5 17.dxe5 Bxe5 18.c3 g5!

The point of 15…Rh5!?.

19.g3 0-0-0 20.Be3 g4!

And this is the point of 18…g5! – the white kingside majority is paralysed and
White makes no progress. The rest of the game is of no relevance to the subject
of tactics in the opening.

21.Kg2 Rdh8 22.Rh1 Rxh1 23.Rxh1 Rxh1 24.Kxh1 Kd7 25.Kg2 Ke6 26.Bf4
Bd6 27.Kf1 f5 28.exf5+ Kxf5 29.Be3 Ke4 30.Ke2 Be5 31.Kd2 Kf3 32.b4 b6
33.c4 b5 34.c5 Bb2 35.Kc2 Bf6 36.Kd3 Be5 37.Kd2 Bb2 38.Kc2

Draw.

RL 8.8

Elburg

Darmograi

Correspondence game 1986

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5 7.d3 Qf6 8.Nbd2
Ne7 9.Re1 Ng6 10.d4 Nf4

A sharp alternative for 10…Bd6.

11.hxg4

11.dxe5 is met by 11…Qg6 12.Nh4 (taking the bishop is bad now: after
12.hxg4? hxg4 13.Nh2 Black plays 13…Rxh2 14.Kxh2 g3+! 15.fxg3 Qh6+
16.Kg1 Bc5+, and wins) 12…Bxd1 13.Nxg6 Nxg6 14.Rxd1 0-0-0, and Black
wins back the e5 pawn with roughly equal play.

11…hxg4
12.g3!

Less good is 12.Nh2?! Nxg2! 13.Ndf1 (after 13.Kxg2?, 13…Rxh2+! 14.Kxh2

Qxf2+ 15.Kh1 g3 decides, while 13.dxe5? is not good either in view of 13…Qh4
14.Ndf1 Bc5! 15.Re2 g3 16.Kxg2 Qh3+ 17.Kf3 Qh5+ 18.Kg2 Bxf2) 13…Nxe1
14.Qxe1 0-0-0, and Black has a strong attacking position, Brondum-Iskov,
Esbjerg 1972.

12…gxf3 13.Qxf3 Ne6

Bad is 13…Nh3+ in view of 14.Kg2 Ng5 15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.Nb3 Ne6 17.Be3,
with advantage for White.

14.dxe5

After 14.Qxf6?! gxf6 15.dxe5 Black plays 15…Nd4! – this is the difference with
13…Nh3?!.

14…Qh6

Practically forced, as 14…Qxe5 15.Qf5 is good for White.

15.Nb3 Qh2+

An alternative is 15…g5!?, followed by …Bg7, a recommendation by Kinsman.

16.Kf1 Bc5 17.Qg2

In Kupsis-Elburg, correspondence game 1993/95, White played 17.Be3, and

after 17…Bxe3 18.Qxe3 Qh3+ 19.Ke2 Qh5+ 20.Qf3 Qxe5 21.c3 0-0-0 22.Qf5
Qxf5 23.exf5 Nf8 the position was roughly equal.

White has other options as well. 17.Nxc5 leads to a draw after 17…Nd4 18.Qg2
Qh1+ 19.Qg1 Qh3+, but 17.Ke2 is a possibility. After 17…0-0-0 18.Bf4 White
was slightly better in Bosch-Van de Oudeweetering, Holland 1996. With 17.Rd1
White can also prevent Black from castling.

17…Qh5 18.Nxc5 Nxc5 19.f4

According to the Yugoslav Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, White should be
clearly better here! But Black turns out to have sufficient counterplay, thanks to
a recommendation from the Dane Iskov.

19…Qg4! 20.Be3 Rh3 21.Bxc5

White is happy with a draw, as 21.Bf2 0-0-0 would rather favour Black.

21…Rxg3 22.Qh2

22.Qe2? Qh3+ 23.Kf2 Qg2 is mate, and 22.Qd2? Qh3+ 23.Ke2 Qh5+! 24.Kf1
Qh1+ comes to a sticky end, too.

22…Rh3

Here a draw was agreed in view of the move repetition 23.Qg2 Rg3 24.Qh2 Rh3.

RL 8.9

Wahls

Bjarnason

Malmö 1985

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Qd6 6.d3

Here 6.Na3 is a much-played move, after which Black has a choice between 6…
b5 and 6…Be6. A nice miniature with this is 7.Ng5 Bd7 8.Nc4 Qg6 9.d4 f6
10.f4 exf4 11.Bxf4 0-0-0 12.Qe1 (White can also sacrifice the e-pawn: 12.Nf3
Qxe4 13.Qd2 g5? 14.Bxc7 Kxc7 15.Qa5+) 12…fxg5? 13.Bxc7! Nf6 14.Qg3 1-0,
Gerigk-Thomas, Germany Bundesliga II 1994.

6…Bg4

Also good is 6…f6 7.Be3 c5 8.Nbd2 Be6, with roughly equal play.

7.Be3 0-0-0

Not a bad move, but a bit risky. White can launch an attack against the black
king along the b-file.

It is safer to keep the option of castling kingside open, e.g.: 7…f6 8.Nbd2 Ne7
9.b4 Ng6 10.h3 Be6 11.d4 Qd7 12.a3 Be7 13.c4 0-0, with roughly equal
prospects; Dolmatov-Smagin, Erevan 1988.

8.Nbd2 f6 9.Rb1 Ne7 10.b4 Ng6?!

10…g5, and only then Ng6, is probably a better idea, e.g.: 11.a4 Ng6 12.b5 axb5
13.axb5 cxb5 14.Rxb5 Qc6 15.Qb1 Nf4 16.Re1 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Ne6, and White
had only a slight advantage in Ermenkov-Radev, Bulgarian championship 1975.

11.h3 Be6 12.a4 Qd7

After 12…Nf4 White also attacks: 13.d4 exd4 14.Nxd4 g5 15.b5, with good
chances.

13.d4 Bd6?!

13…exd4 14.Nxd4 Bf7, in order to meet 15.b5 with 15…cxb5 16.axb5 Bc5, was
probably stronger.

14.b5 axb5 15.axb5 exd4

15…cxb5 would have run into 16.d5 Bf7 17.Ra1 Qe7 18.c4, and White has a
strong attack.

16.Ra1 Kb8

Black’s position is slowly deteriorating; 16…Qf7 17.bxc6 bxc6 18.Nxd4 would

also have favoured White.
17.Nxd4 cxb5?

This is beautifully refuted. 17…c5 was called for, although White is still better
after 18.Nxe6 Qxe6 19.f4.
18.Ra8+! Kxa8 19.Qa1+ Kb8 20.Qa7+!

And Black resigned. After 20…Kxa7 21.Nc6++ Ka6 22.Ra1+ he is mated.

RL 8.12

Nadanian

Mnatsakanian

Erevan 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 f6 6.d4 Bg4

According to the theory the position is roughly equal after 6…exd4 7.Nxd4 c5
8.Nb3 Qxd1 9.Rxd1; White has the better pawn structure, but Black’s two
bishops guarantee him sufficient counterplay.

7.c3

Or 7.dxe5 Qxd1 8.Rxd1 fxe5 9.Rd3, with roughly equal play, according to the
theory.

7…exd4

7…Bd6 is also a reasonable move.

8.cxd4 Bxf3?!
This pawn grab is risky; safer is 8…Qd7 9.h3 Be6 10.Nc3 0-0-0, and Black has a
quite playable position.

9.Qxf3 Qxd4 10.Rd1 Qc4 11.Bf4 Qf7

Black can return the pawn with 11…Bd6, but then 12.Bxd6 cxd6 13.Rxd6
(13.Qg3!? is also an idea) 13…Nh6 14.Na3 Qb4 15.Rad1 is good for White.

12.Nc3

All this has been played before, and the moves 12.Na3 and 12.Qg3 have also
been tried.

12…Rd8?!

The idea that the king will find safety on the queenside turns out to be an
illusion. Better was 12…g5 or 12…h5 to make room on the kingside.

13.Rxd8+ Kxd8 14.Rd1+ Kc8 15.e5

15.Qe3 b6 16.Qd3 Kb7 17.Qd8, indicated by Kinsman, also looks very strong.

15…Qe6

After 15…fxe5 White plays 16.Qg4+ and wins.

16.Qd3! Be7 17.Qe3 b6

18.exf6 Qxe3 19.fxg7!

The point of the subtle queen manoeuvre: the g7 pawn is no longer covered by
the bishop on f8!

19…Qxf4 20.gxh8Q Qf7 21.Qe5

Black resigned.

RL 9.3

Tseshkovsky

Kupreichik

Minsk 1985

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5

This system was very popular with Norwegian players in the ’60s and ’70s.
Black immediately goes for White’s strong Spanish bishop, but this costs time,
and the weakening of his pawn structure may also backfire. The variation is
regarded as dubious these days.

6.0-0

6.Nxe5?! is met by 6…Nxb3 7.axb3 Qg5, of course, and Black has good
counterplay.
6…d6 7.d4 exd4

Black gives up the centre, a serious concession. But supporting the centre with
f6 is not quite satisfactory either: 7…f6 (or 7…Nxb3 8.axb3 f6 9.c4, with better
play for White) 8.Be3 Bb7 9.Be6! Bxe4 10.Nbd2 Bb7 11.b4 Nc6 12.c3 (White
has good compensation for the sacrificed pawn) 12…Be7 13.Qb3 Kf8 14.Rad1
Qe8 15.dxe5 fxe5 16.Ne4! Nd8 17.Nxe5! dxe5 18.f4, and White had a very
strong attack in Volchok-Bern, cr 1992/94.

8.Nxd4 Bb7 9.c4 c5 10.Nf5!?

10.Nf3 and 10.Nc2 are also good moves.

10…g6 11.Ng3 Bg7 12.Nc3 b4 13.Nd5 Nf6

This move was rejected by some commentators, but after 13…Nxb3 14.Qxb3
Ne7 15.a3 White is also better.

14.Ba4+ Kf8

This king move is forced, as 14…Nc6? runs into 15.e5! dxe5 16.Bg5 h6 17.Bxf6
Bxf6 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Nxe7 Qxe7 20.Nd6+ Kf8 21.Nxb7 Qxb7 22.Qd6+.

14…Bc6?! is not really possible either in view of 15.Bxc6+ Nxc6 16.Qa4 Rc8
17.Qxa6.

15.a3! Nxc4

No better is 15…bxa3 16.Rxa3 Nxc4 17.Nxf6! Bxf6 (or 17…Qxf6 18.Rb3 Rb8
19.h4!, with an attack) 18.Rb3 Rb8 19.Bh6+ Bg7 20.Qc1, White has a strong
attack and is better, Tseshkovsky.

16.Nxf6 Bxf6 17.axb4 Kg7?

Now White can strike; but 17…cxb4 18.Bh6+ Kg8 (18…Bg7? 19.Bxg7+ Kxg7
20.Qd4+ Ne5 21.f4) 19.Qb3 or 17…h5 18.Qb3 Nb6 19.bxc5 is also bad for
Black.

18.bxc5 dxc5 19.Qb3 Nb6

20.Nf5+!

A winning knight sacrifice. 20.Nh5+! would have done as well: 20…gxh5

21.Qg3+ Kf8 22.Bh6+ Ke7 23.e5 or 20…Kg8 21.Nxf6+ Qxf6 22.Bd2. Thus
Tseshkovsky.

20…gxf5 21.Qg3+ Kf8 22.Rd1

22.Bh6+ Ke7 23.Rfd1 wasn’t half bad either: 23…Rg8 24.Rxd8 Rxg3 25.Rxa8
Rxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Bxe4+ 27.f3 Bxa8 28.Bc2.

22…Bd4

22…Nxa4 23.Rxd8+ Rxd8 would have been more stubborn. White’s best bet is
24.Bh6+ Ke8 25.e5 Be7 26.Qg7 Rf8 27.Qxh7.

23.Bh6+ Ke7 24.Rxd4!

Now White wins by force.

24…Qxd4 25.Rd1 Qxd1+

Forced, as 25…Nxa4 26.Rxd4 cxd4 27.Qc7+ Ke8 28.Bg5 is mate.

26.Bxd1 Nd7 27.exf5 Rhe8 28.Bd2 Rac8 29.f6+! Kxf6 30.Qd6+ Re6 31.Qxd7
Rce8 32.h3 Bc6 33.Bc3+ Kg6 34.Qd3+

Black resigned.

RL 10.2

Sznapik
 Ziembinski

Poland 1970

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6

The Neo-Steinitz Variation. Inserting a6 and Ba4 gives Black better chances to
absorb the pressure on his centre than in the normal Steinitz Variation 3…d6,
which has been completely superseded.

5.0-0 f5?!

This move would be good after 5.c3, but now it demands too much of the
position.

6.d4!

6.exf5 Bxf5 7.d4! also looks strong: 7…e4 8.d5 b5 9.Bb3 Ne5 10.Nd4 Qc8 11.f4
exf3 12.Nd2 Bg4 13.N4xf3 Nf6 14.Qe1, with advantage for White;
Omelchenko-Angelov, correspondence game 1975.

6…fxe4 7.Ng5 b5

7…exd4 8.Qxd4 Nf6 9.Nxe4 Bd7 10.Re1 also favours White.

8.Bb3 d5 9.dxe5 Nge7 10.Nc3 h6 11.Qh5+ g6

White seems to have overplayed his hand, but now we see a fine king hunt.

12.Bxd5! gxh5?!

After 12…Qxd5 White stages a fine mate with 13.Nxd5 gxh5 14.Nf6+ Kd8
15.Nf7. Relatively best was 12…Nxe5 13.Ngxe4 Bg7 14.Qh4 Nxd5 15.Qxd8+
Kxd8 16.Nxd5, with advantage for White.

13.Bf7+ Kd7 14.e6+

With 14.Rd1+ White can win back material, but he won’t settle for anything less
than mate!

14…Kd6 15.Ngxe4+ Ke5 16.f4+

The white player had probably foreseen all this in his calculations and must have
hoped that the black king would somehow get mated. And he turns out to be
right.

16…Kf5

Or 16…Kd4 17.b3, followed by 18.Rd1+.

17.Ng3+ Kg4

If the king flees back, he will also be mated: 17…Kf6 18.Nce4+ Kg7 19.Nxh5+
Kh7 20.Nef6 mate! Another curious mating position.

18.h3+! Kxg3

The combination is dead-on: 18…Kh4 19.Be3! Qd4 20.Bxd4 Nxd4 21.f5, with
the point of 21…Kxg3 22.Ne4+ Kh4 23.Rf4 mate.

19.Ne4+?!

White is creating unnecessary problems for himself. After 19.Be3 the mate with
20.Ne4+ Kh4 21.Bf2 cannot be parried.

19…Kh4 20.f5!
White is a queen and a knight down, but this quiet move is decisive.

20…Rg8

After other moves Black is also mated: 20…Qd4+ 21.Kh2 Qe5+ 22.Rf4+ Qxf4+
23.Bxf4 Nxf5 24.g3+ Nxg3 25.Bxg3 mate, or 20…Ne5 21.Rf4+ Ng4 22.Be3,
and mate, or 20…Nd5 21.Kh2, and mate.

21.Bxg8 Nd5 22.Rf4+

More elegant was 22.Kh2!, with mate in a few moves: 22…Bd6+ 23.Rf4+.

22…Nxf4 23.Bxf4 Qd6

After 23…Qg5 there is no mate, although White easily wins after 24.g3+.

24.g3+ Kxh3 25.Nf2

Mate.

RL 10.3

Beliavskis

Rapoports

Correspondence game 1976

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5 7.d4

After 7.c3 Qf6 8.d3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Qxf3 10.gxf3 Ne7 Black has no problems.

7…b5 8.Bb3 Nxd4 9.hxg4 hxg4 10.Ng5 Nh6

This is the crucial position in this variation.

11.Be3

Other possibilities here are 11.f4, 11.g3 and 11.Bd5. The position is very
complicated. If you want to play this, you’d better study the relevant theory.

11…Be7 12.Nxf7

White returns the piece. Voronovsky-Ginburg, correspondence game 1992, saw

12.Qd2 Nxb3 13.axb3 Qd7 14.Nc3 f6 15.Nxb5 fxg5 16.Qa5 Bd8 17.Na7, and
now Black should have played 17…g3!: 18.Qd5 (18.f3 Qf7!) 18…Rxa7 19.Bxa7
c6, with an advantage for Black.

12…Nxf7 13.Bxd4 exd4 14.Bd5?

This is not good. Correct was 14.Bxf7+ Kxf7 15.Qxg4 Bf6, with roughly equal
chances.

14…Ne5! 15.Bxa8 Bg5! 16.Bc6+ Ke7 17.Qxd4

After 17.Nd2 Bf4 18.Re1 (not 18.g3? Bxd2 19.Kg2 Rh2+! 20.Kxh2 Qh8+) it is
hard to see a direct continuation. So 17…g3 18.Re1 Be3!?, with a continuing
attack, looks stronger.

17…Bf4 18.Rd1

A flight square for the king…

18…Rh1+!

This must been a serious shock for the white player!

19.Kxh1 Qh8+ 20.Kg1 Nf3+!

The magnificent point!

21.Kf1

After 21.gxf3 gxf3 White cannot escape mate.

21…Nxd4 22.Rxd4 Be5 23.Rb4

Or 23.Rd1 Bxb2 24.Nd2 Bxa1 25.Rxa1 Qh1+ 26.Ke2 Qxa1, and Black wins.

23…Qh1+ 24.Ke2 g3!

Now White is slaughtered.

25.fxg3 Qxg2+ 26.Kd1 Qf1+ 27.Kd2 Bxg3 28.c3 Bf4+ 29.Kc2 Qc1+ 30.Kb3
Qd1+ 31.Ka3 Be3!

White resigned.

RL 10.3

Skuja

Pozniak
Correspondence game 1976

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5 7.d4 b5 8.Bb3 Nxd4
9.hxg4 hxg4 10.Bxf7+!?

This is also a possibility: stopping the black attack by returning the piece.

10…Kxf7 11.Ng5+ Ke8

11…Kg6?! 12.c3 Be7 13.cxd4 Bxg5 14.Qxg4 Nh6 15.Qg3 Nf7 16.f4 exf4
17.Bxf4 yielded White the advantage in the correspondence game Poletaev-
Ginburg, 1976. After 11…Ke7? 12.c3 Qe8 13.cxd4 Qh5 14.f4! Nf6 15.Qb3 d5
16.fxe5 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 dxe4 18.Bd2 Black was finished in Gelfand-Kuripko,
Minsk 1980.

12.c3
12…Be7?!

12…Ne6! is probably Black’s strongest option: 13.Qxg4 (after 13.Nxe6? Qh4

White might as well resign) 13…Nxg5 14.Bxg5 Qd7 15.Qxd7+ Kxd7 draw;
Sundin-Estrin, correspondence game 1975.

13.cxd4 Bxg5 14.Qxg4 Bf6

The alternative 14…Bxc1 is not really satisfactory either: 15.Rxc1 exd4 16.Nd2
Qd7 17.Qg5, and White has the best of it, e.g. 17…Nf6 18.e5!.

15.Nc3 c6 16.Ne2 Rh4?!

This is leading nowhere; 16…Qd7 is better.

17.Qg3 exd4

17…Rxe4? 18.Qg6+ costs Black the rook.

18.Nxd4! Ne7

Or 18…Bxd4 19.Bg5 Bf6 20.Bxh4 Bxh4 21.Qxg7 Qg5 22.Qb7, with an attack –
by White, that is. And this in a variation in which Black is doing the attacking!

19.Bg5 Rxe4 20.Bxf6 gxf6 21.Nxc6! Qd7

After 21…Nxc6 White has 22.Qg6+ again.

22.Nxe7 Kxe7 23.Qg7+

The rest is not interesting as regards opening theory. White has emerged from
the complications with advantage and will go on to win the game.

23…Ke6 24.Qg6 Re5 25.Rfe1 Qf7 26.Qg4+ f5 27.Qd4 Qb7 28.Rad1 Qc6
29.Rc1 Qd5 30.Qh4 Re4?!

Gipslis has indicated 30…Rg8 as better.

31.Qh6+ Kd7 32.Qh7+ Ke6 33.Red1 Qe5 34.Qg6+ Ke7 35.Rc7+ Kd8 36.Rf7
Black resigned.

RL 10.6

Kupper

Christoffel

Zurich 1961

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6 6.c3 Nxe4?!

A risky move. More in tune with the set-up chosen by Black is 6…Bd7.

7.d4 Bd7

7…b5 8.Bb3 is also good for White, e.g. 8…d5 9.a4! Rb8 10.axb5 axb5 11.dxe5
Be6 12.Nd4, Alekhine-Ruben, Copenhagen 1930.

8.Re1 f5?!

This may weaken the black position too much. Better is 8…Nf6, although White
is better after 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.Qxd8+ Rxd8 (or 11…Kxd8
12.Nxe5 Be8 13.Bg5) 12.Nxe5 Be4 13.Nd2 Be7 14.Nxe4 Nxe4 15.Bh6!.

9.dxe5 dxe5

9…Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Rxe4! fxe4 12.Qh5+ is also very good for White.

10.Nbd2!
This simple developing move shows up the drawbacks of Black’s approach.

10…Qf6

Both 10…Nxd2 11.Bxc6! and 10…Bd6 11.Nxe4 fxe4 12.Ng5 also give White
excellent play.

11.Nxe4 fxe4 12.Bg5! Qf5

Or 12…Qd6 13.Rxe4 Qxd1+ 14.Rxd1 Bd6 15.Nxe5, with a large advantage for
White.

13.Bc2 Bd6 14.Bxe4 Qg4 15.Qd3! Qh5

15…0-0 is met by 16.Bxh7+ Kh8 17.Re4, and wins, e.g. 17…Rxf3 18.Rxg4
Rxd3 19.Rh4!.
16.Qc4!

Keeping the black king in the centre. The main threat is 17.Bxc6, followed by
taking on e5.

16…h6 17.Bxc6 Bxc6

Or 17…bxc6 18.Bf4.

18.Rxe5+!

A nice final move. Black resigned; he is hopelessly lost, e.g. 18…Bxe5 19.Qe6+
Kf8 20.Be7+, and mate in a few moves.

RL 11.2

Van der Tak

Van den Berg

Haarlem 1961

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5

The Siësta Variation, called after the sanatorium in Budapest where Capablanca
used the system against Endre Steiner in 1928. Black is looking for immediate
counterplay in the centre.
6.exf5 Bxf5 7.d4

7.0-0 is the preferred reply these days.

7…e4 8.Ng5 d5 9.f3 e3

Another idea is 9…h6 10.fxe4 hxg5 11.exf5 Bd6. A nice example with this is:
12.Qf3 g4! 13.Qxg4 Nf6! 14.Qxg7 Rg8 15.Qh6 Rxg2 16.Bd1 Qe7+ 17.Kf1 0-0-
0! 18.Kxg2 Rg8+ 19.Bg5 Qe3 20.h4 Qg3+ 21.Kf1 Re8 22.Bd2 Ng4 23.Bxg4
Qxg4 24.Qe6+ Rxe6 25.fxe6 Bg3, and White resigned in Nyman-Estrin,
correspondence game 1975.

10.f4 Nf6 11.Nf3 Bd6 12.Bxc6+

White is probably better off forgetting about this move and going for 12.Ne5! at
once, e.g. 12…Bxe5 13.dxe5! Ng4 14.0-0 Qh4 15.h3 Nf2 16.Qxd5! Be4
17.Qe6+ Kf8 18.Bxe3 Nd3 19.Bb3 Qh5 20.f5 Re8 21.Qc4 Rxe5 22.g4 Qe8
23.Nd2 b5 24.Qe6! Rxe6 25.fxe6+ Ke7 26.Bg5+ Kd6 27.Nxe4+ Ke5 28.Rf5+
Kxe4 29.Bd5 mate, Smoljan-Kurtovic, correspondence game 1991.

12…bxc6 13.Ne5

White is thinking that he will be able to pick up pawn e3 later, but it is precisely
this pawn that will enable Black to make his final combination! 13.Bxe3 0-0
14.0-0 would probably have been wiser; now Black will find it harder to prove
the correctness of his pawn sacrifice.

13…Bxe5 14.fxe5?

Correct was 14.dxe5!; after 14…Ng4 15.0-0 Qh4 16.h3 Nf2 17.Qf3 (this is an
important difference with the game Smoljan-Kurtovic, indicated under move 12:
White cannot take with the queen on d5 now!) 17…Nxh3+ 18.gxh3 Bxh3
19.Bxe3 Bxf1 20.Kxf1 0-0 the situation is unclear.

14…Ng4 15.0-0 0-0 16.Qe2 Bd3! 17.Qxd3 Qh4

White resigned; after 18.h3 the beautiful 18…Qf2+! is deadly.

RL 11.2

Adams

Piket

Wijk aan Zee 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5 6.exf5 Bxf5 7.0-0 Bd3 8.Re1 Be7
9.Re3 e4 10.Ne1 Bg5 11.Nxd3?

All this was well-known from the theory books. The text looks good at first
sight, but has been known to be bad since the game Klavin-Mikenas, Riga 1959.
The white player, apparently, was not aware of this.

Stronger is 11.Rg3 Bh4, and now not 12.Rh3? in view of 12…Bxf2+! 13.Kxf2
Qf6+ 14.Rf3 exf3 15.Bxc6+ bxc6 16.Nxd3 fxg2+ 17.Kg1 Ne7 18.Qe2 0-0
19.Qxg2 Qf5! 20.Qe2 Ng6, and White resigned (Autowicz-Pinkas, Poznan
1975) but 12.Nxd3! Bxg3 13.Qe2!, e.g. 13…Ne7 14.Qxe4 d5 15.Qg4 Bd6
16.Qxg7 Ng6, with unclear play, Keglevic-Kondali, cr 1972.

11.Rh3 is playable. Black then goes 11…Nf6 or 11…Nh6 12.Nxd3 exd3

13.Rxd3 0-0, with compensation for the pawn.

11…Bxe3 12.Nb4

The point; but now White is in for a surprise!

12…Bxf2+!

This immediately yields a winning attack.

13.Kxf2 Qh4+ 14.Kg1 Nh6!
15.Qf1

White never gets around to taking on c6, as 15.Nxc6 is simply met by 15…0-0
16.Ne7+ Kh8 17.g3 Qh3, and Black wins. In the aforementioned game Klavin-
Mikenas there followed 15.g3 Qh3 16.d4 (16.Qf1 won’t help in view of 16…
Qxf1+ 17.Kxf1 0-0+ 18.Ke2 Ne5) 16…Ng4 17.Qe2 0-0 18.Bf4 g5!, with
winning play for Black. 15.Qe2 0-0 16.Bb3+ Kh8 17.Nxc6 Ng4 also gives Black
a winning attack.

15…Ng4 16.Qf4

16.h3 loses as well: 16…Rf8 17.Qe2 Nf2 or 17…Ne5, followed by 18…Nf3.

16…Rf8 17.Qg3 Rf1+! 18.Kxf1 Nxh2+ 19.Qxh2

19.Kf2 is met by 19…Ng4+.

19…Qxh2

White resigned.

RL 11.2

Lanka

Bankieris

Correspondence game 1983

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5 6.exf5 Bxf5 7.0-0 Bd3 8.Qb3

A very remarkable move. White is trying to exploit the fact that the black bishop
has left the c8-g4 diagonal.

8…b5?!

The simple 8…Rb8! is Black’s strongest option: 9.Re1 Be7 10.c4 e4 11.Ng5 Nf6
12.Nc3 0-0 13.Ncxe4 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Ne5, with excellent play for Black,
Topalov-Lautier, Linares 1995.

9.Qd5 Nd4

9…Bxf1 10.Qxc6+ Ke7 11.Bc2 Bc4 12.d4 offers White very good chances.

10.cxd4

Tempting but bad is 10.Ng5? in view of 10…Ne2+ 11.Kh1 Qxg5! 12.Qxa8+

Kd7 13.Bb3 e4 14.Qxf8 Nh6! 15.Qxh8 Nf4 16.Rg1 Ng4 17.h3 Nxf2+ 18.Kh2
Ne2. A nice variation!

10…Ne7 11.Qe6 Bxf1 12.Bb3

With 12.Kxf1 bxa4 13.Ng5 exd4 14.Qf7+ Kd7 15.Qe6+ Ke8 16.Qf7+ White
could keep perpetual check, but it goes without saying that he is looking for
more. White has excellent compensation for the sacrificed exchange.

12…Bc4 13.Bxc4 bxc4 14.dxe5!

With 14.Ng5 exd4 15.Qf7+ White could still have got a draw by perpetual
check, but the text is stronger.

14…dxe5

Or 14…Qd7 15.Qxc4, with compensation.

15.Nc3 Qd6 16.Qxc4 Ng6?!

In an earlier game Gerasin-Ruchentsev, Soviet Union 1968, Black played 16…

h6 17.Qe4 Rd8 18.Nxe5 Qe6 19.f4, with good play for White, but the text is no
improvement. The white knight now jumps into the black position via g5.
17.Ng5! Qd7

After 17…Nf4 both 18.Nf7 Qg6 19.g3 Qxf7 20.Qc6+ and 18.d4!? favour White.

18.Nd5

18.Nf7 looks strong, too.

18…Bd6 19.Ne6!

Now Black is driven demented by the white knights around his king. The knight
is taboo, of course: 19…Qxe6 20.Nxc7+.
19…Rc8 20.d4! exd4 21.f4! Rf8

Other possibilities are no better: 21…Ne7 22.Nxg7+ Kf8 23.Nf6 Qb5 24.Ne6+
Kf7 25.Ng5++, or 21…d3 22.Bd2 Qb5 23.Qe4 Qxb2 24.Nxg7++ Kd7 25.Bc3,
with a winning attack.

22.Bd2 Rf7 23.Re1 Re7

Or 23…Ne7 24.Nxg7+.

24.Nxe7

Black resigned.

RL 11.2

Sokolov

Anic

France 1994

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5 6.exf5 Bxf5 7.0-0 Bd3 8.Re1 Be7
9.Bc2!? Bxc2 10.Qxc2 Nf6 11.d4 e4

The position after 11…exd4 12.cxd4 (tempting but unclear is 12.Ng5 Qd7
13.Ne6 Kf7 14.Ng5+ Kg8 15.Qb3+ d5 16.Qxb7) 12…0-0 13.Nc3 is slightly
more pleasant for White.
For 11…0-0, see Z.Almasi-Winants, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

12.Ng5 d5 13.f3

13.Ne6 is a shot in the dark. After 13…Qd7 14.Nxg7+ Kf7 White loses a piece.

13…h6 14.Nh3 0-0 15.Nd2 exf3

The combination 15…Bd6? 16.fxe4 Bxh2+ is not correct: 17.Kxh2 Ng4+

18.Kg3 Qd6+ 19.e5 Qe6 20.Nf3 Ne7 21.Qh7+!, with liquidation and a decisive
advantage for White, Vehi Bach-Winants, Barcelona 1991.

16.Nxf3 Bd6?

The black player probably didn’t know that this move had already been refuted
in earlier games. After 16…Qd7?! 17.Qg6! Qg4 18.Qxg4 Nxg4 19.Nf4 Rfd8
20.Ne6 Rd7 21.Bf4 Rc8 22.Re2 White is also better (Leko-Yusupov, Vienna
1996), but 16…Rf7 is quite playable: 17.Qg6 (now this move does not work;
17.Nf4 may be a better idea) 17…Bd6 18.Bf4 (after 18.Bxh6? Black has 18…
Ne7) 18…Ne7 19.Qc2 Ng4 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.Bxe5 Bxe5 22.Rxe5 Qd7, and
Black had no problems in Almasi-Sermek, Pula 1996.
17.Bxh6! gxh6 18.Qg6+ Kh8 19.Qxh6+ Nh7

19…Kg8 is met by 20.Re6, and Black cannot move a muscle.

20.Nfg5 Qd7

Black looks like having things under control.

21.Re6!

But the white attack virtually plays itself.

21…Rae8

21…Rg8 won’t help either: 22.Rf1 Rg7 23.Ref6 Qe8 24.Nf7+ Kg8 25.Rg6!, and
Black resigned, Mitchell-Kondali, correspondence game 1977/78. 21…Qg7 runs
into 22.Qh5, followed by 23.Rh6.

22.Rae1

White now simply threatens to take twice on e8 and then mate his opponent.

22…Rxe6 23.Rxe6 Rg8

After 23…Qg7 24.Nxh7 Qxh7 25.Rxd6 Black resigned in Chaplinsky-Dmitriev,

Soviet Union 1972! The most stubborn defence, strangely enough, is 23…Rb8,
when White has no better than 24.Rf6 Nd8 25.Rf7 Qxf7 26.Nxf7+ Nxf7 27.Qh5
Rf8 28.Qxd5, since after 24.Nxh7 Qxh7 25.Qf6+ Qg7 26.Qh4+ square g8 is
free.

24.Nxh7 Qxh7 25.Qf6+ Qg7

Or 25…Rg7 26.Re8+.

26.Qh4+! Qh7 27.Rh6

Black resigned.
RL 11.2

Almasi

Winants

Wijk aan Zee 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5 6.exf5 Bxf5 7.0-0 Bd3 8.Re1 Be7
9.Bc2!? Bxc2 10.Qxc2 Nf6 11.d4 0-0 12.d5!?

This is the most dangerous assault on the black position. Unclear is 12.Qb3+
Kh8 13.Ng5 Qd7 14.Nf7+ Rxf7 15.Qxf7 d5 16.dxe5 Rf8 17.Qxf8+ Bxf8 18.exf6
gxf6 19.Bf4, Ernst-Wieweg, Göteborg 1992, but after the simple 12.dxe5 Nxe5
13.Nxe5 dxe5 14.Be3 Ng4 15.Nd2 White is slightly better, Balashov-
Yandemirov, Russia 1994.

12…e4

12…Nb8? is bad, of course, in view of 13.Ng5.

13.Ng5 Ne5 14.Ne6 Qd7

15.Nd2!

15.Nxf8?! is strongly met by 15…Qg4, e.g. 16.Kh1 (16.h3? Nf3+ 17.Kf1

Qxg2+! 18.Kxg2 Nxe1+) 16…Rxf8 17.Be3 Qh4, and Black has good
compensation for the exchange, according to Anand.

15…e3!? 16.Rxe3

Weaker is 16.fxe3?! Rf7 17.e4 Nfg4 18.Nf1 Bh4, and Black has a strong attack
for the pawn (Anand).

16…Nxd5 17.Nxf8 Nxe3 18.Qxh7+ Kxf8 19.fxe3

After 19.Qh8+ Kf7 20.Qxa8 Black has 20…Nxg2 21.Kxg2 Qg4+, with
perpetual check.

19…Re8 20.Ne4!

Black needn’t be afraid of other moves: 20.e4 Qg4! (but not 20…d5?! 21.Nb3
dxe4? 22.Be3 Bf6 23.Rf1, with a decisive advantage for White, Anand-Yusupov,
Wijk aan Zee 1994) 21.Qf5+ Qxf5 22.exf5 Bf6, followed by …Nd3 or …Ng4,
with good play for Black, or 20.h3 Qb5! 21.Nb3 Bf6 22.Bd2 Qd3 23.Qxd3
Nxd3, and Black had good compensation for the pawn, Xie Jun-Lautier,
Amsterdam 1994.

20…Qg4 21.Bd2 Nf3+ 22.Kh1 Nxd2 23.Nxd2 Qe2?!

Obvious but not good. Better is 23…Bf6, and after 24.Qd3 Qe6 25.Nf1 it is
unlikely that White will ever be able to do anything with his extra pawn.

24.Ne4! Qd3

After 24…d5 White wins with 25.Ng3 Qxe3 26.Rf1+ Bf6 27.Nh5.

25.Re1!

Threatening 26.Kg1 and 27.Rf1.

25…d5?
This loses quickly. 25…Bd8 is more stubborn, but White is still better: 26.Qh8+
Kf7 27.Qh5+ Kf8 28.Nf2!.

26.Qh8+ Kf7 27.Qh5+ Kf8 28.Nf2! Qb5

Black must keep an eye on square f1.

29.Ng4

Threatening 30.Ne5. The net is closing.

29…Bd6

Or 29…Kg8 30.a4!, and Black can only continue to cover squares d5 and e8
with 30…Qc6 or 30…Qd7, after which White plays 31.Ne5, gaining a tempo.

30.Qh8+ Kf7 31.Qh7

Now White is threatening 32.Nh6+ again.

31…Re6 32.Kg1! Qxb2

Or 32…Be7 33.Rf1+ Bf6 34.Nh6+ Ke7 35.Nf5+, winning.

33.Rf1+ Ke8 34.Qxg7 Kd8 35.Nf6 Qb5 36.Qg8+ Ke7 37.Nxd5+

Black resigned. After 37…Qxd5 38.Rf7 he is mated.

RL 11.5

Veselovsky

Mokry
Czech Republic 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 d6 7.d4 Bd7 8.dxe5 Nxe5

After 8…dxe5 9.Bg5 or 9.Be3 the theory has White slightly better.

9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.f4 exf4!?

The well-known game Fine-Alekhine, AVRO tournament 1938, saw 10…Bxa4

11.Qxa4+ Qd7?! (better is 11…b5!? 12.Qb3 exf4 13.Bxf4 Nf6 14.Nd2 0-0
15.Rae1 Ng4, with roughly equal play) 12.Qxd7+ Kxd7 13.fxe5 Ke6 14.Bf4 Rf8
15.Nd2 Bxe5 16.Nb3, with advantage for White.

11.Bxf4 Nf6 12.Be5

The other possibility 12.Bg5 Bxa4 13.Qxa4+ b5 14.Qc2 yields nothing: 14…
Qe7! 15.e5 (after 15.Qf2 Black has 15…Nxe4) 15…Qxe5 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Qf2
Be7 18.Qxf7+ Kd7 19.Qf3 Raf8 20.Qh3+ Qe6 21.Qxe6+ Kxe6 22.Re1+ draw;
Kiril Georgiev-Smyslov, Biel 1993.

12…b5 13.Bb3

Black looks like being in trouble, but he has a way out.

13…0-0! 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Rxf6 Qxf6 16.Qxd7 Rad8

With knight and bishop for the rook, White is ahead in material, but the white
queenside is still awaiting development and the white king is exposed.

17.Qxc7

Less good is 17.Qg4? Qb6+ 18.Kh1 Qf2! 19.Na3 Qxb2 20.Nc2 c5, with better
play for Black.

17…Qg5 18.Na3

18.h3 is met by 18…Qc1+ 19.Kh2 Rd3!, and only then …Qb2; 19…Qxb2? at
once is unclear in view of 20.Bxf7+! Rxf7 21.Qxd8+, and White has at least
perpetual check.
18…Qe3+!

After 18…Rd2 White simply goes 19.Qg3, e.g. 19…Qxg3 20.hxg3 Rxb2
21.Rf1, with advantage.

19.Kh1 Qxe4

Perhaps 19…Rd2 was better here.

20.Nc2

After 20.Bxf7+, the above turn is now met by 20…Kh8, e.g. 21.Qb6 Kg7!
22.Qc7 (after 22.Bb3?! Rd2 White is in trouble: 23.Rg1 Rxg2!, and White has to
save his skin with 24.Qd4+, after which 24…Qxd4 25.cxd4 Rxb2 is good for
Black) 22…Kh6 (or 22…Kh8 23.Qb6 Kg7, with move repetition) 23.Bb3 Rd2
24.Qg3 Rff2 25.Rg1 Rxb2 26.Qh3+ Kg7 27.Qd7+, with perpetual check. Thus
an analysis by the Czech player Vokac.

20…Rd2 21.Ne1 Rf2!?

Good for White is 21…Rxb2?! 22.Nf3.

22.Nf3 Rxf3!? 23.gxf3 Qxf3+ 24.Kg1 Qe3+ 25.Kg2 Qe2+ 26.Kg3 Qe3+
27.Kg2 Qe2+ 28.Kh3!?

White tries to avoid the perpetual.

28…a5

After 28…Qf3+ 29.Qg3 Qh5+ 30.Kg2 Qe2+ 31.Kh1 the king is safe; and after
28…Qh5+ 29.Kg3 Qg5+ 30.Kf3 Qh5+ 31.Kf2 Qf5+ 32.Kg1 as well.

29.Qd6?!

After 29.Rg1 Qh5+ 30.Kg3 Qg5+ 31.Kf2 Qd2+ Black has perpetual check
again, as 32.Kf1? a4 is impossible because this costs White the bishop. White
best bet was 29.Qb7!, e.g. 29…a4 30.Bd5 Qxb2 31.Rf1 Qxc3+ 32.Rf3 Qc8+ (or
32…Qg7!? – it’s not very clear) 33.Qxc8 Rxc8 34.Rxf7 Kh8, again according to
Vokac. The endgame is probably good for White.

29…Re8 30.Rg1?

White misses his last chance. He should have played 30.Bxf7+!: 30…Kxf7
31.Qd5+ Kg7 32.Qd4+ Re5 33.Rg1 Kh6 34.Qf4+, and White will survive.

30…Qh5+ 31.Kg3 Re3+

White resigned in view of 32.Kg2 Qe2+ 33.Kh1 Qf3+ 34.Rg2 Re1 mate, or
32.Kf4 Rf3+ 33.Ke4 Qf5+ 34.Kd4 Rd3 mate.

RL 12.3

Weiss

Pollock

New York 1889

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6

Black is preparing for the main line of the Ruy Lopez. The attack on e4 is
forcing White into a decision: to cover or to continue his development.

5.d3 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.c3

Analogously to the main line, White can also opt for 7.a4 here.

7…d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Qe2

Another good move is 9.0-0, e.g. 9…Bg4 10.Re1 0-0 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3,
indicated by Levenfish.

9…0-0 10.Qe4! Be6 11.Nxe5?!

White should have left this pawn well alone! Wiser was 11.Ng5! g6 12.Nxe6
fxe6 13.0-0, with good play for White.

11…Nxe5 12.Qxe5 Nb4! 13.0-0

After 13.cxb4 Bxb4+ 14.Kd1 (or 14.Nc3 Bxb3 15.axb3? Re8) 14…Qxd3+
15.Nd2 Bxb3+ 16.axb3 Rfe8 17.Qg3 Qe2+ 18.Kc2 Rad8 White is lost.

13…Nxd3 14.Qh5 Bxb3 15.axb3 Re8 16.Nd2

After 16.Be3 Bxe3 17.fxe3 g6 18.Qe2 Qd5 19.Na3 Rad8 20.Rad1 Qe4 Black is
better, too.

16…Qe7 17.b4

Now Black can strike, but after 17.Nf3 White would have had a strong reply in
17…Qe2.

17…Bxf2+! 18.Kh1

18.Rxf2 Nxf2 19.Kxf2 Qe3+ 20.Kf1 Qe1, mate, loses at once.

18…Qe1! 19.h3
19…Nxc1!

This wins by force. The white king is very exposed.

20.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 21.Kh2 Bg1+ 22.Kg3

22.Kh1 Be3+ 23.Kh2 Bxd2 is also hopeless.

22…Re3+ 23.Kg4

Or 23.Nf3 Ne2+ 24.Kh4 Re4+, and it’s finished, e.g. 25.Kg5 Be3+ 26.Kf5 Ng3
mate.

23…Ne2 24.Nf1 g6 25.Qd5 h5+ 26.Kg5 Kg7!

To round off the proceedings, we have a nice finale.

27.Nxe3 f6+ 28.Kh4 Bf2+ 29.g3 Bxg3

Mate.

RL 12.4

Kirillov

Furman

Vilnius 1949
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Qe2

This way of covering the e-pawn is named after Robert Wormald, a little-known
player from the 19th century who finished Staunton’s last book after the latter’s
death. Sergey Tiviakov is one of the few modern grandmasters who regularly
plays the Wormald Attack.

5…b5 6.Bb3 Be7 7.a4 b4 8.Bd5?!

A dubious attempt to grab the advantage. Good was 8.0-0 0-0 9.a5 or the
powerful 8.d4! (8…d6 9.Qc4).

8…Nxd5 9.exd5 Nd4 10.Nxd4 exd4 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qc4

So this was the idea: White wins a pawn. After 12.d3 a5, incidentally, Black
would have had a good position.

12…c5 13.dxc6 dxc6 14.Qxc6 Ra7

Black has excellent compensation for the lost pawn: the white queenside is
totally undeveloped, and with his two bishops Black will soon be able to threaten
the white castled position.

15.Qf3

15.Qe4 would also have been met by 15…Rc7 and 16…Bb7.

15…Rc7 16.d3 Bb7!

This is far stronger than 16…Rxc2. Black exploits his lead in development.

17.Qd1 Bd6 18.Nd2 Re8 19.Nc4?

With this move White provokes a sacrificing attack that he won’t survive. The
only remedy was 19.Ne4, but then Black is better after 19…Bxe4 20.dxe4 Rxe4.
19…Bxh2+! 20.Kxh2 Qh4+ 21.Kg1 Bxg2!

With the double bishop sacrifice Black blows up the entire white castled
position. White is powerless in the face of the black attack.

22.Kxg2 Rc6! 23.Bf4

23.Qf3 Rg6+ 24.Qg3 was no good either in view of 24…Re2!, e.g. 25.Qxg6
fxg6 26.Bd2 Rxd2 27.Nxd2 Qg5+, with a good endgame for Black.

23…Qxf4 24.Rh1 Rf6!

After this subtle move it is all over.

25.Rh2

Other moves didn’t work either: 25.Qd2 Qf3+; 25.f3 Rg6+ 26.Kf1 Qg3, or
25.Rh3 Qxf2+ 26.Kh1 Re2 27.Qg1 Qf3+! 28.Rxf3 Rh6+ 29.Qh2 Rexh2+
30.Kg1 Rh1+.

25…Rg6+

White resigned in view of 26.Kh1 Re1+! 27.Qxe1 Qf3+, and mate.

RL 12.4

Gruzman

Korolev

Correspondence game 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Qe2 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4

After 7.c3 d6 8.0-0 0-0 the position is roughly equal. The text also fails to yield
any advantage.

7…Bb7

7…Rb8 is also good.

8.Nc3

After the pawn grab 8.axb5 axb5 9.Rxa8 Qxa8 10.Qxb5?!, 10…Qa7! is a strong
reaction. The safe 8.d3 leads to equality.

8…0-0 9.axb5?!

The logical consequence of 7.a4, but now Black, with his queen on a8, gets good
play. After 9.0-0 or 9.d3 the position would simply have remained equal.

9…axb5 10.Rxa8 Qxa8

11.Nd5

This doesn’t work, but does White have anything better? 11.Nxb5 Nxe4!
12.Qxe4 Nd4 is good for Black (13.Qd3 e4), as is 11.Qxb5 d6 12.Qe2 (12.0-0
loses the exchange: 12…Ba6) 12…Nd4!. And finally, after 11.0-0 the reply 11…
Nd4 is also strong.

11…Nxd5 12.Bxd5 Nd4

A little slip. With 12…Nb4! 13.Bxb7 Nxc2+ Black could have moulded the
game to his will, and after 13.Bb3 Bxe4 Black has a large advantage.

13.Bxb7?

White fails to exploit it. 13.Nxd4 Bxd4 14.Bxb7 Qxb7 15.c3 results in an equal
position.

13…Nxc2+!

This must have come as a surprise!

14.Kd1

14.Kf1 Qxb7 15.Nxe5 Re8 is hopeless.

14…Qa4! 15.b3

Or 15.Bd5 Ne3++ 16.Ke1 Nxg2+ 17.Kf1 Nf4 18.Qe1 Nd3, or 15.Qd3 Ne3++
16.Ke2 Nxg2 17.Qc3 Nf4+ 18.Ke1 c6, as 19.Qxc5 costs the queen: 19…Nd3+.
Variations from the black player.

15…Qxb3 16.Bd5 Ne3++ 17.Ke1 Nxd5 18.exd5 Qb1 19.Qd1 Ra8 20.d3 Ra1

White won’t survive this pin.

21.Ke2 e4! 22.Ne5

Or 22.dxe4 Qxe4+ 23.Kf1 Qc4+.

22…Ra2+ 23.Bd2 Qb2 24.f4 Qd4!

White resigned in view of 25.Rf1 e3.

RL 12.5

Grodzensky

Siniavsky

Correspondence game 1987

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5

This old continuation was reintroduced by the Danish theoretician Jørgen Møller
at the start of the 20th century.

6.c3 Ba7

Black is anticipating on d2-d4. He can also do this by retreating to b6, with the
drawback that the b-pawn will be blocked. This is why many players go 6…b5
at once.

7.d4 Nxe4 8.Re1 f5 9.Rxe4!?

There is no problem whatsoever with the quiet 9.Nbd2, but this exchange
sacrifice yields White a strong initiative.

9…fxe4 10.Bg5 Ne7 11.Nxe5 0-0 12.Qg4

White has a strong initiative for the sacrificed exchange.

12…c6

This is an important moment in this opening variation.After 12…d6 13.Qh4 Re8

14.Bb3+ d5 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 (or 15…Rxe7 16.Bxd5+ Qxd5 17.Qxe7) 16.Bxd5+
Be6 17.Qxe7 Rxe7 18.Bxb7 White, with his handful of pawns for the exchange,
has good winning chances.

An interesting idea of Velickovic is 12…e3!?, with this continuation: 13.fxe3 d5

14.Qh4 Qd6 15.Nc4 (15.Bxe7 runs into 15…Qxe5!, the point of 12…e3!?)
16.Bxf8 Qxe3+ 17.Qf2 Qxf2+ 18.Kxf2 Kxf8 19.Nd2, with a dead equal
position) 15…Qe6 16.Bxe7 dxc4 17.Bxf8 Qxe3+ 18.Qf2 Qxf2+ 19.Kxf2 Kxf8,
again with an equal position.

13.Qh4 Re8 14.Nd2 d5 15.Nxe4!

15…Bb8

After 15…dxe4 16.Bb3+ it is finished at once. 15…Qc7 is met decisively by

16.Nf6+! gxf6 17.Bxf6 Nf5 18.Qg5+ Ng7 19.Bc2, with winning play,
Pankevich-Lezhnev, correspondence game 1986, and after 15…Bf5 White also
plays 16.Nf6+! gxf6 17.Bxf6, with winning threats, e.g. 17…Qc7 18.Qg5+, and
now 18…Bg6 19.Bc2 Bb8 20.f4 Qd6 21.f5, or 18…Ng6 19.Qxf5 Nxe5 20.dxe5
Qf7 21.Bc2 Qg6 22.Qxg6+ hxg6 23.Bxg6, and White’s pawns guarantee him the
win, according to an analysis by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin.

16.Nf6+!

Now, too, this knight sacrifice is the key to the win. The rest speaks for itself.

16…gxf6 17.Bxf6 Bxe5 18.Qg5+ Kf7 19.Qg7+ Ke6 20.Re1 Kd7 21.Rxe5 b5

21…Kd6 is slightly more stubborn, but after 22.Qg3 Kd7 23.Bxe7 Qxe7
24.Rxd5+ Ke6 25.Re5+ White also had a winning position in Grodzensky-
Shiriaev, correspondence game 1983.

22.Bc2 Kd6 23.Qg3 Kd7 24.Rxe7+ Rxe7 25.Bf5+

Black resigned.

RL 12.5

Asaturian

Serovaisky

Correspondence game 1988

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 6.c3 Ba7 7.d4 0-0

For 7…Nxe4, see the correspondence game Grodzensky-Siniavsky from 1987.

8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 b5?!

After 9…g5? White sacrifices: 10.Nxg5! hxg5 11.Bxg5 (the man threat now is
12.f4!) 11…Nxd4 12.cxd4 Bxd4 13.Qf3 Kg7 14.Nc3 c6 15.Rad1 d6 16.Rxd4!
exd4 17.e5 dxe5 18.Ne4, and Black resigned, Grodzensky-Maier,
correspondence game 1979.

10.dxe5 g5

After 10…Nxe5 11.Nxe5 bxa4 12.Ng4 Black has an inferior position, but the
text is hardly better.

11.exf6 gxh4

Or 11…Qxf6 12.e5! Qg7 13.Bc2 gxh4 14.Nxh4 Nxe5 15.Nf5 Qf6 16.Qh5, also
with good play for White, Tal-Keres, Tallinn 1959.

12.e5!

The f6 pawn is the nail in Black’s coffin. Weaker was 12.Bc2?! Qxf6, and Black
is simply fine.

12…bxa4

12…Nxe5 won’t help either: 13.Nxe5 Qxf6 14.Ng4.

13.Qd2 Kh7 14.Qd3+ Kh8

14…Kg8 is also met by 15.Ng5. After 15…hxg5 White wins at once with
16.Qf5.
15.Ng5! hxg5 16.Qf3 Nxe5 17.Qh5+ Kg8 18.Qh6 Qxf6

The only move. Black, with two pieces for the queen, continues to struggle, but
he might as well have resigned here.

19.Qxf6 Ng6 20.Nd2 g4 21.Rad1 Rb8 22.Nc4 Rb5 23.Ne3 d6 24.Rd5 Rxb2

Or 24…Bxe3 25.Rxb5 Bxf2+ 26.Qxf2 axb5 27.Qa7.

25.Rg5 Re8 26.a3 h3 27.Nxg4 Bxg4 28.Rxg6+ fxg6 29.Qxg6+ Kf8 30.Qxg4
Re7 31.Qxh3 Rf7 32.Qh8+

Black resigned.

RL 12.5

Short

Onischuk

Wijk aan Zee 1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 6.Nxe5

An ancient turn when the bishop appears on c5.

6…Nxe5 7.d4 b5!?

This unusual move looks just as surprising as the main line 7…Nxe4.

8.dxe5

After 8.Bb3 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6 we find ourselves transposing to the variation 5…

b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6.

8…Nxe4 9.Bb3

9.Qg4!? may also be a good possibility.

9…Bb7 10.Nc3

After 10.Bd5 Bxf2+! 11.Rxf2 Nxf2 12.Kxf2 Qh4+ 13.Kf1 Bxd5 14.Qxd5 0-0
Black has good compensation for his small material deficit. Playing to win a
pawn is risky: 10.Qg4?! Qe7 11.Qxg7?! 0-0-0, with good chances for Black.

10…Qh4

If Black inserts the capture on c3 (10…Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qh4), 12.Bd5 would be

strong for White.
11.Bxf7+!?

11.Qf3 is another possibility.

11…Ke7

11…Kxf7! may be followed by 12.Qxd7+ Kg6 (after 12…Be7 White has a

strong reply in 13.Nd5!, while White has compensation after both 12…Kf8
13.Be3 and 12…Kg8 13.Qe6+ Kf8 14.Be3) 13.Nxe4 (bad is 13.Qe6+? Nf6!
14.exf6 Rhe8 15.Qd7 Qxf2+! 16.Rxf2 Re1 mate) 13…Qxe4! 14.Qe6+ Kh5
15.Qh3+ Kg6 16.Qe6+, with perpetual check. The text is risky but playable.

12.Be3 Bxe3 13.fxe3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qe4

After 14…Raf8 15.Rf4 White is better.

15.Rf2 Raf8?!

Now the white attack rolls on. Safer was 15…Qxe5!? 16.Qd4 (16.Qg4 Raf8)
16…Qxd4 17.exd4 Raf8 18.Re1+ Kd8, followed by …d6 and …Bb7-c6-e8, with
roughly equal play, according to Short.

16.Qh5 Qxe3 17.Rd1 Bc6 18.e6! d6

The only move. After 18…dxe6? 19.Qh4+ g5 20.Qb4+ the game is finished and
18…g6? is met by 19.Qh4+ g5 20.Qh6 Qe5 21.exd7, winning.

19.Qh4+ g5 20.Qh6 Qe5 21.Rd3 Be4

Or 21…Kd8 22.Rg3, with advantage for White.

22.Re3 d5 23.g4!

Now White is threatening to win at once with 24.Rf5.

23…Rhg8 24.Rf5?

Throwing away all his advantage. White would have won after 24.Bxg8!, as
Black runs out of checks after 24…Rxf2 25.Kxf2 Qf4+ 26.Ke2 Qxg4+ 27.Kd2
Qg2+ 28.Re2.

24…Qg7

Now all direct threats have been parried. White will have to fight for a draw.

25.Qh3 Bxf5 26.gxf5 Rh8 27.Qg3 Rc8 28.Re5 Rhd8 29.f6+ Qxf6 30.Rxg5
Qh6 31.Bh5

A good alternative was 31.h4.

31…Rf8 32.Rg7+?!

White should still have gone for 32.h4. After 32…Rg8 33.Rxg8 Rxg8 34.Qxg8
Qxh5 the endgame favours Black, but according to Onischuk, White can still
fight.

32…Kf6 33.Rf7+?

Here White misses his last chance with, viz. 33.Rd7.

33…Rxf7 34.Qf2+ Kxe6 35.Qxf7+ Kd6 36.Bg4 Rd8

White resigned.

RL 12.6

Bologan

Tkachiev

Enghien les Bains 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5

Inserting b5 and Bb3 is terribly the rage these days, but the American genius
Paul Morphy already played it in 1859.

7.a4

White immediately directs his attention to the starting-point b5.

7…Rb8 8.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6 10.Na3 0-0 11.axb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 exd4

Another possibility is 12…Bg4 13.Re1 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Nh5, with counterplay.

13.cxd4 Bg4 14.Ra4

Black has counterplay after both 14.Bc2 d5! 15.e5 Ne4 and 14.Re1 d5!.

14…Re8

Taking the e4 pawn is less good: 14…Nxe4?! 15.Bd5 Qe8 16.Qc2 Ne7 17.Bxe4
Qxb5 18.Bxh7+, with advantage for White.

15.Re1

According to Bologan, 15.Bg5 is stronger: 15…h6 16.Bd5! Ne7 17.Bxf6 gxf6

18.Nc3, and White is slightly better.

15…Qd7

A good alternative was 15…Ba5! 16.Nc3 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Rxe4 18.Be3 Bxf3
19.gxf3 Re8 20.Ra6, with an unclear position (Bologan).

16.Bc2 d5 17.e5 Ne4 18.Nc3

18.Bxe4 dxe4 19.Rxe4 runs into 19…Nxe5!

18…Nxe5!? 19.dxe5

The position is quite complicated. After 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.dxe5 (or 20.Nxe5
Rxe5 21.Qd2 Rd5, with roughly equal play) 20…exf3 21.Qxd7 (after 21.gxf3
Qxd1 22.Bxd1 Bd7 Black has compensation for the pawn) 21…Bxd7 22.Rh4 h6
23.gxf3 the position is roughly equal, and after 19.Bxe4 dxe4 20.Nxe5 Rxe5
21.Qd2 Re6 Black has counterplay, according to Flear.

19…Bxf3!

Taking on f2 yields nothing: 19…Nxf2?! 20.Qxd5 Nd3+ 21.Kf1 Qxd5 22.Nxd5

Bxf3 23.Nf6+! gxf6 24.Bxd3 Rbd8 25.gxf3 Rxd3 26.exf6 Rxf3+ 27.Kg2 Rf2+
28.Kg3, with advantage for White, or 19…Bxf2+?! 20.Kh1 Bxe1 21.Qxe1 Nxc3
22.Qxc3 Bxf3 23.gxf3 Qh3 24.Kg1, with slightly better play for White
(Bologan).

20.Qxf3 Bxf2+ 21.Kh1?

White should have played 21.Kf1!, as the next move makes clear.

21…Nxc3?

Missing his chance. With 21…Bxe1! 22.Nxe4 dxe4 23.Qxe4 g6 24.Qxe1 Qc6
25.Qe4 Rxe5! Black could have exploited the unfortunate position of the white
king, as Bologan indicates. After 26.Qxe5 Qxc2 27.Re4 Qxc1+ 28.Re1 Qxb2
Black has a winning endgame.

22.Rg4! Bxe1 23.Bh6 Qxg4

The only move: 23…g6 is met by 24.Qf6, and mate. After 23…f5 24.Bxf5 Qe7
25.Bxg7 Qxg7 26.Rxg7+ Kxg7 27.Qh5 White is winning, and after 23…Ne4
24.Rxg7+ Kh8 25.Bxe4 dxe4 26.Qf6 it is over as well.

24.Qxg4 g6 25.Qf3!

Threatening 26.Qf6.

25…Bh4 26.Qxc3
Now White has a winning position.

26…d4 27.Qxd4 Bf6 28.Bf4 Re6 29.h3 Bg7 30.Bb3 Reb6 31.Bc4 Rxb2
32.Qd7 Rf8 33.Qxc7 h6 34.Qc6 g5 35.Be3 Rb1+ 36.Bg1 Rd8 37.Be2 Re1
38.Qb5 Rd2 39.e6?

At the last moment White makes a mistake in time-trouble. Correct was 39.Qe8+
Kh7 40.Bf3 Rxe5 41.Qxf7, or 39.Bh5, winning.

39…fxe6

And Black ran out of time. After 39…Rdxe2, however, White’s advantage would
have evaporated!

RL 12.6

Anand

Shirov

Belgrade 1997

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 Rb8 8.axb5

An example with 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.d4 is Kolev-Berebora, Benasque 1995: 9…

Bxd4 10.Qxd4 d6 11.f4 c5 12.Qd1 Neg4 13.e5 c4 14.exf6 Qb6+ 15.Kh1 Nf2+
16.Rxf2 Qxf2 17.Ba2 Bb7 18.Qg1, and Black forced perpetual check with 18…
Bxg2+ 19.Qxg2 Qe1+.
8…axb5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.d4 Bxd4 11.Qxd4 d6 12.f4

After 12.c3 0-0 the position is roughly equal.

12…Nc6

Another possibility is 12…c5, e.g. 13.Qd1 Neg4 14.e5 c4 15.exf6 Qb6+ 16.Kh1
Nf2+ 17.Rxf2 Qxf2 18.Ba2 Bb7 19.Qg1, and it’s a draw.

13.Qc3

The game Leko-Shirov, Tilburg 1997, saw 13.Qd3 0-0 14.Nc3 Nb4 15.Qg3 c5
16.e5 Nh5, with complicated play and roughly equal chances.

13…Ne7 14.Ra7

After 14.Qd3 0-0 15.Nc3 c5!? 16.Nxb5 Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Rxb5 18.Ra7 c4!
19.Bxc4 d5 20.Qxe7 dxc4 21.Qxd8 Rxd8 Black has insufficient compensation
for the pawn, Kasparov-Topalov, Novgorod 1997. 14.e5 is met by 14…Ne4,
with counterplay.

14…c5

Another possibility is 14…Bb7. After 15.e5 things are unclear.

15.e5 Nfd5 16.Bxd5 Nxd5 17.Qf3

In Judit Polgar-Shirov, Tilburg 1997, White played 17.Qg3, and after 17…0-0
18.Nc3, 18…Nxc3 19.Qxc3 Bf5 would have resulted in an equal position.

17…Qb6
18.Rxf7!?

A nice move, but it won’t yield more than a draw. After 18.Ra1 Black could play
either 18…Bb7 or 18…Nb4!? 19.exd6 0-0.

18…c4+ 19.Kh1 Kxf7 20.Qxd5+ Be6 21.Qd1 Bf5

Now White must go for the draw. 21…dxe5?! 22.f5 Bc8 23.Qd5+, with a strong
white attack, is too risky.

22.Qd5+ Be6 23.Qd1

Draw.

RL 12.6

Dutreeuw

Motwani

Moscow 1994

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.d4
Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6 10.a4?!

This is often a good move in the Ruy Lopez, but not now. Here the correct move
is 10.f4.
10…c5 11.Qe3 0-0 12.axb5

12.Nc3 Bb7 13.axb5 axb5 14.Rxa8 Qxa8 also favours Black.

12…c4 13.Ba2 axb5

The bishop that had sallied so proudly to b5 on the third move, now finds itself
completely stranded on a2.

14.b3
14…b4!

Threatening to close off the entire white queenside with 15…c3.

15.bxc4 Be6 16.Qd4

After 16.Bb2 Bxc4 17.Bxc4 Nxc4 18.Qb3 Nxb2 19.Qxb2 Rxa1 20.Qxa1 Qc7
pawns c2 and e4 are weak.

16…Rxa2! 17.Rxa2 Bxc4 18.Rb2 Bxf1 19.Kxf1 Nc6 20.Qc4 Qd7 21.Nd2

After 21.Bg5 White would be ambushed with 21…Qg4!, e.g. 22.f4 h6 23.Bxf6
Qxf4+ 24.Kg1 Qxf6, with an attack on Rb2.

21…Re8 22.f3 d5 23.Qd3 Qc7! 24.g3

24.exd5 is met by 24…Qxh2 25.dxc6 Qh1+ 26.Kf2 Qe1 mate!

24…Rd8 25.Qe2 Nd4 26.Qd3 dxe4 27.Nxe4 Nxe4 28.fxe4

After 28.Qxe4 Black plays 28…b3, and wins.

28…h6 29.Bf4

Or 29.Rxb4 Nc6 30.Qc3 Rd1+.

29…Qe7 30.Rb1 g5 31.Bd2

Or 31.Be3 Nf5, winning, e.g. 32.Bc5 Nxg3+ 33.Kg2 Qc7 34.Qe3 Nxe4.

31…Qf6+

White resigned.

After 32.Kg2 Nf3 33.Qxf3 Rxd2+ he is utterly lost.

RL 12.6
 Ericson

Heemsoth

Correspondence game 1956

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 d6 7.Ng5

A primitive attempt at refuting the black set-up, but the move is not clearly bad.

7…d5 8.exd5 Nd4!

Bad is 8…Nxd5? 9.Nxf7! Kxf7 10.Qf3+ Ke6 11.Nc3 Ne7 12.d4 c6 13.Bg5, and
Black is in big trouble.

9.c3!

9.Qe1?! is met by 9…Bc5!, e.g. 10.Qxe5+? Kf8 11.c3 Ng4 12.Nxf7 Qh4
13.Qxc7 Ne2+ 14.Kh1 Qxf2!, winning, Bogatirchuk-Dzhagurov, Soviet Union
1939.

After 9.Re1?! Black also plays 9…Bc5! 10.Rxe5+ Kf8, e.g. 11.c3 (or 11.Ne4
Bg4 12.Qe1 Ne2+ 13.Kf1 Bd4 14.Nxf6 Qxf6 15.Rxe2 Bxe2+ 16.Qxe2 Re8
17.Qf3 Qe5 18.g3 Qe1+ 19.Kg2 Re2, and White resigned, Kriukov-Andreev,
correspondence game 1959) 11…Ng4 12.cxd4 Bxd4, with excellent chances for
Black.

9…Nxb3 10.Qxb3 Nxd5 11.Re1 f6

12.d4!?

After 12.Nf3 Nf4 13.d4 Nd3 14.Rd1 e4 Black has no problems.

12…fxg5

Black could also have tried 12…Be7 here.

13.Rxe5+ Ne7 14.Bxg5 h6 15.Bxe7 Bxe7 16.Nd2 Rf8?

Stronger was 16…Kf8!, with the continuation 17.Rae1 Bf6 (and not 17…Bd6?,
when 18.Qd5 Rb8 19.Qf3+ wins) 18.Qb4+ Kf7 19.Qb3+ Kg6 20.Qc2+ Kf7
21.Qb3+, and a draw by perpetual check. According to Heemsoth, 16…c6!?
17.Rae1 Ra7 was also possible, but this looks pretty scary after the simple
18.Nf3 or 18.Ne4, and the black king continues to feel the draft. And the text is
certainly refuted.

17.Rae1 Rf7 18.Rxe7+! Rxe7 19.Qg8+ Kd7 20.Qd5+ Ke8 21.Rxe7+ Qxe7
22.Qxa8 Qe6

After 22…Qe1+, 23.Nf1 seals the win.

23.Qe4

Black resigned.

RL 12.7

Zelic

Krasikova
Correspondence game 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7

This is the starting-position of the Arkhangelsk Variation, named after a group of

players from the Russian city on the White Sea that started experimenting with it
in 1960.

7.d4 Nxd4 8.Nxd4

The continuation 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Nxe5+ Kg8 10.Qxd4 c5 11.Qd1 Qe8 gives
Black good counterplay.

8…exd4 9.e5 Ne4 10.c3 Nc5!?

Also possible is 10…dxc3. After 11.Qf3 d5! 12.exd6 Qf6 13.d7+ Kd8! 14.Qxf6+
Nxf6 15.Nxc3 Kxd7 16.Bxf7 Bd6 the position is equal.

11.cxd4 Nxb3 12.Qxb3

12.axb3!? is another idea, when White can meet 12…Be7 with 13.Qg4; but 12…
Qh4 would also be a possibility here.

12…Qh4!? 13.f4?!

This move looks impressive, but it weakens the white position, especially the a7-
g1 diagonal, but also the b7-g2 one. See the end of the game! 13.Qd3 Be7
14.Nd2 0-0 15.Nf3 Qh5, incidentally, would also have given Black good play,
Boicu-Stupina, Romania 1989. After 13.Be3 Black can force perpetual check if
she wants to: 13…Bxg2 14.Kxg2 Qg4+.

13…c5! 14.Be3

14.d5 is met by 14…c4.

14…cxd4 15.Bxd4 Rc8 16.Nc3

A good alternative was 16.Nd2, although Black can play 16…g5!? then.

16…Rc4 17.Be3
17…g5! 18.fxg5?!

Better was 18.f5, when, according to Krasikova, Black can choose between 18…
Bb4 19.Rac1 0-0 and 18…b4 19.Ne2 Qe4 20.Rf2 Bd5.

18…Bg7 19.Rae1 0-0!

A good example to prove that you should only castle when you have nothing
better! Also, 19…Bxe5? is bad in view of 20.Bf4 Rxf4 21.Rxe5+.

20.Bc1 d6! 21.exd6 Bd4+ 22.Kh1

After 22.Be3 Black plays 22…Be5, and wins.

22…Bf2!

With the strong threat of 23…Qxh2+! 24.Kxh2 Rh4 mate!

23.Re3

Equally hopeless is 23.Rxf2 Qxf2 24.Rg1 Re8 25.d7 Qxg2+! 26.Rxg2 Re1 mate.

23…Bxe3 24.Bxe3 Qh3!

White resigned.

RL 12.8

Gudzhev

Morozov
Correspondence game 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.Re1 Bc5 8.c3 d6
9.d4 Bb6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 g5

By playing this at once, before castling, Black prevents the sacrifice on g5, as in,
for example, Volchok-Klaic, 1989.

12.Bg3 0-0 13.Qd3 Nh5 14.Nbd2 Qf6 15.Bd5 Rae8

Another possibility is 15…Nxg3 16.hxg3 g4 17.Nh4 Rae8, with difficult play.

16.a4 Nxg3 17.hxg3

Interesting but dubious is 17.axb5?! axb5 18.Qxb5. After 18…exd4 19.Bxc6

Bxc6 20.Qxc6 dxc3 21.bxc3 Nh5 Black is better.

17…exd4 18.axb5 axb5 19.Bxc6

Bad is 19.Nxd4? in view of 19…Nxd4 20.Bxb7 Nc2! 21.Qxc2 Bxf2+ 22.Kh2

Bxg3+!, and Black wins. 19.Qxb5 is also risky, as after 19…dxc3 20.bxc3 Na7!
21.Rxa7 Bxd5 22.Raa1 Ba8 Black has no reason to complain.

19…Bxc6 20.Nxd4

Less good is 20.cxd4? in view of 20…g4 21.e5 Qg6!, with advantage for Black.

20…Bd7 21.Nf1!?

The game Dolmatov-Beliavsky, Moscow 1990, saw 21.N2f3 b4 22.Nf5?! (a

better move is 22.Nd2) 22…Bxf5 23.exf5 bxc3 24.bxc3 Rxe1+ 25.Rxe1 Kg7,
with better play for Black.

21…c5

21…Re5 seems better: 22.Ne3 Qg6 23.Nef5 g4 24.Qd2 Kh7 25.Nh4 Qg5
26.Qd3 Rfe8, and the position is roughly equal, Karnovich-Korolev,
correspondence game 1991/92.

22.Ra6!? Rb8?

Correct was 22…c4 23.Qd2 Bc5 24.b4, and White is only slightly better
(Gudzhev).

23.Ne3!

The white knight now jumps into the black position, sowing death and
destruction.

23…cxd4

23…c4 is now met by 24.Nd5! Qd8 (or 24…Qg7 25.Qf3! Bxd4 26.cxd4, and
Black is in serious trouble) 25.Qd2 Bc5 26.e5! dxe5 27.Nf6+ Kg7 (after 27…
Kh8 28.Qc2 it’s curtains) 28.Nxd7 Qxd7 29.Ne6+, winning the queen.

24.Nd5 Qd8 25.Rxb6! Rxb6 26.Qxd4 f6

Or 26…Rb8 27.Nf6+ Kg7 28.Nxd7+.

27.Nxb6 Bc6 28.Nd5 Kg7 29.Ne3!

Black resigned.

RL 12.8

Prandstetter

Mikhalchishin

Dortmund 1990
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.Re1 Bc5 8.c3 d6
9.d4 Bb6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 g5 12.Bg3 0-0 13.h4

For 13.Qd3 see the 1992 correspondence game Gudzhev-Morozov.

13…g4!

13…Nh5?! is quite dubious: 14.Nxg5!? (or 14.Nxe5 Nxg3 15.Nxc6 Bxc6

16.fxg3, which also looks good for White) 14…Nxg3 15.Re3! Nxe4 16.Qh5
hxg5 17.Qg6+ Kh8 18.Qh6+ Kg8 19.Rxe4 Nxd4 20.cxd4! Bxe4 21.Nc3 Bb7
(21…Bf5 22.Nd5) 22.hxg5 d5 23.Ne4! f5 (23…dxe4 24.g6) 24.gxf6 Rf7
25.Qg6+ Kf8 26.Ng5 Qd7 27.Re1 Bxd4 28.Re4!, and Black resigned in
G.Popov-Kirchof, correspondence game 1989/90. A magnificent spectacle!

14.Nh2

Mikhalchishin indicates that 14.Ng5?! fails to work now: 14…hxg5 15.hxg5

exd4! 16.gxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxg4+ Qg7, with good play for Black.

14…h5 15.Qc1?!

According to Beliavsky, 15.Qd2 is stronger: 15…Kh7 16.Na3, with an unclear

position.

15…Kh7 16.Qg5 Rg8! 17.Qf5+ Kh8 18.dxe5

18.Bxf7 is met by 18…Bc8 19.Be6 Bxe6 20.Qxe6 exd4, e.g. 21.Na3 dxc3
22.bxc3 Qf8 23.Nc2 Re8 24.Qf5 Ne7 25.Qf4 Ng6 26.Qf5 Nxe4!? 27.Qxh5+
Kg7, and Black has a strong attack (Mikhalchishin).

18…Nxe5 19.Bxe5 dxe5 20.Qxe5 Qd6!

Swapping queens is very strong! The two terrible bishops op b7 and b6 will give
White short shrift. 20…g3?! looks more obvious, but this is unclear: 21.Rd1!
gxh2+ 22.Kh1, and also 20…Bxf2+?! 21.Kxf2 g3+ 22.Kg1 gxh2+ 23.Kh1.
21.Qxd6

Or 21.Qf5 Bc8 22.e5 Bxf5 23.exd6 g3.

21…cxd6 22.g3

Black was threatening 22…g3, while 22.Kf1 is met by 22…g3! 23.fxg3 Nxe4,
with the threat of 24…Nxg3 mate.

22…Nxe4 23.Re2

Or 23.Kf1 Nxf2 24.Re7 Bc6 25.Rxf7 Nh1!, and White loses as well
(Mikhalchishin).

23…Nxg3 24.Re7 Bc6 25.Nd2 Nf5 26.Rxf7 Raf8!

Now White is powerless against …g3.

27.Nhf1 g3! 28.Nxg3 Rxg3+ 29.Kf1 Rxf7 30.Bxf7 Rg2

White resigned.

RL 12.8

Dutreeuw

Malaniuk

Forli 1991
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.Re1 Bc5 8.c3 d6
9.d4 Bb6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Qd7 12.a4 0-0-0 13.axb5 axb5 14.Bxf6

For the other move, 14.Na3, see the game Norrelyke-Keller, correspondence
game 1988.

14…gxf6 15.Bd5 Rhg8

16.Bxc6?!

This is not a good idea. Better is 16.Qd3 (Rogers) or 16.Kh1, e.g. 16…Qg4 (or
16…f5 17.Na3 fxe4 18.Rxe4 Qf5 19.Nxb5 exd4 20.c4, with unclear and difficult
play, Klovans-Malaniuk, Nikolaev 1983) 17.Rg1 exd4 18.cxd4 f5 19.Nc3 fxe4
20.Bxe4 Rde8, again with a difficult position, with roughly equal chances,
Ulibin-Shirov, Kapsukas 1987.

16…Bxc6 17.d5 Bb7

It’s still too early for 17…Qh3 18.g3 Rxg3+?: 19.hxg3 Rg8 (or 19…Qxg3+
20.Kh1 Qh3+ 21.Nh2) 20.Nd4 exd4 21.cxd4.

18.c4?

18.Qe2? also loses: 18…Qh3 19.g3 Rxg3+! 20.hxg3 Rg8!, and now White might
as well resign after 21.Nd4 exd4 22.cxd4 (other moves are no better; the b6-f2
diagonal is always opened, after which Black can take on g3, e.g. 22.Qf3 dxc3
23.Qf5+ Qxf5 24.exf5 Rxg3+ 25.Kf1 Rf3, winning) 22…Rxg3+ 23.fxg3 Bxd4+!

The same goes for 18.Qd3?; after 18…Qh3 19.g3 Rxg3+ 20.hxg3 Qxg3+
21.Kh1 Qh3+, 22.Nh2 loses the queen: 22…Qxd3.

White could try 18.Nbd2, but then 18…Qh3 19.g3 f5! is good for Black. 19…
Rxg3+? is not good now, however, in view of 20.hxg3 Rg8 21.Nf1. Another
possibility is 18.Kf1, when 18…Qg4 is good for Black.

18…Qh3 19.g3 Rxg3+! 20.hxg3 Rg8

White resigned. After 21.Nd4 Black simply plays 21…Bxd4.

RL 12.8

Norrelykke
 Keller

Correspondence game 1988

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.Re1 Bc5 8.c3 d6
9.d4 Bb6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Qd7 12.a4 0-0-0 13.axb5 axb5 14.Na3

For 14.Bxf6, see the game Dutreeuw-Malaniuk, Forli 1991.

14…g5 15.Bg3 h5 16.h4

After 16.dxe5 Black plays 16…h4 17.exf6 hxg3 18.hxg3 g4 19.Nd4 (or 19.Nh4
Rxh4 20.gxh4 g3) 19…Rh5, followed by …Rdh8, with a strong attack.

16…gxh4 17.Bxh4 Rh6 18.Nxb5

A safer continuation is 18.dxe5 Nxe5 19.Nxe5 dxe5 20.Qxd7+ Rxd7 21.Rad1

Nxe4 22.Rxd7 Kxd7 23.Bxf7 Nxf2 24.Be8+! Kxe8 25.Rxe5+ Kd7 26.Bxf2, with
liquidation to an equal endgame, Rogulj-Yakovich, Belgrade 1988.

18…Rg8 19.Qd3

Another possibility is 19.Ng5, e.g. 19…Rhg6 20.Bxf7 Rxg5 21.Bxg8 Rxg8

22.Bxf6 Qh3 23.g3, with an unclear position.

19…exd4 20.cxd4 Nb4 21.Qc4 Nxe4 22.Qxf7 Qxf7 23.Bxf7

23…Rg4!?

All of this has been seen before: 23…Rg7 24.d5 Rxf7 25.Rxe4 Nxd5 26.Re8+
Kd7 27.Rd8+ Kc6 28.Nfd4+ Bxd4 29.Nxd4+ Kb6 30.Rg8 draw; Marjanovic-
Chandler, Minsk 1982. The text is an interesting attempt to improve on Black’s
play.

24.Re2

24.Rad1!?, suggested by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, is probably a good

alternative.

24…Nd3 25.d5?!

White opens the b6-f2 diagonal, which he shouldn’t have! Stronger was 25.g3
Ndxf2 26.Rxf2 Nxf2 27.Kxf2 Bxf3 28.Kxf3 Rxh4 29.gxh4 Rf6+ 30.Ke4 Rxf7
31.Rg1, with a roughly equal endgame.

25…Ne5!

25…Rxh4 26.Nxh4 Bxf2+ looks good, but after 27.Kh2 Bg3+ 28.Kh3 Ndf2+
29.Rxf2 Bxf2 Black has no advantage, according to Keller.

26.Nxe5 dxe5 27.g3

27.Be6+ is met by 27…Rxe6 28.dxe6 Rxh4, of course; also, 27.Be7 Kd7 28.Ba3
Ng5! is winning for Black (Keller).

27…Nxg3 28.Bxg3 h4!

28…Rxg3+?! looks obvious, but yields nothing after 29.Kh2.

29.Rxe5

White is hopelessly lost, as Keller shows: 29.Be6+ Rxe6 30.dxe6 hxg3 31.e7
gxf2++ 32.Kh2 Bc6, with winning play, or 29.Na7+ Kd8 30.Nc6+ Bxc6 31.dxc6
hxg3 32.Rxe5 gxf2++ 33.Kf1 Rg1+ 34.Ke2 Rxc6.

29…hxg3 30.Be6+ Rxe6 31.dxe6 gxf2++ 32.Kh2 Rg2+! 33.Kh3 Rg1 34.e7
34.Rf5 runs into 34…Bg2+! (the point of 32…Rg2+!) 35.Kh2 Rxa1 36.Kxg2 (or
36.Rf8+ Kb7 37.e7 Bc6) 36…Rg1+.

34…Bc6 35.Ra8+ Kb7 36.Rf8 Re1! 37.Ref5 Bd7 38.Kg3 Bxf5 39.Rxf5 Rxe7

White resigned. The endgame is easily won by Black.

RL 12.8

Brynell

Rantanen

Nyköping 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.Re1 Bc5 8.c3 0-0
9.d4 Bb6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 d6 12.a4 exd4 13.cxd4 Re8 14.axb5 axb5 15.Rxa8
Bxa8 16.Nc3 g5?!

Safer is 16…Na5, e.g. 17.Bc2 b4 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Rxe1+ 20.Qxe1 Qe8!?,
according to Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, the great experts of this variation.

17.Bxg5!

The other sacrifice, 17.Nxg5?!, seems more obvious, but this is unclear: 17…
hxg5 18.Bxg5 Nxd4. Black is probably fine.

17…hxg5 18.Nxg5 Re7

18…Nxd4? is met by 19.Nxf7, while after 18…Rf8? White plays the winning
19.Qf3 Nxd4 20.Qg3 Nh5 21.Qh4 Nf6 22.Re3; 18…Kg7? also loses quickly:
19.Nxf7 Qd7 20.Qd2 Ng4 21.Qg5+ Kf8 22.Nh8!, and Black resigned in what
you could call the stem game of this system: Kotov-Keres, Soviet Union 1950.
19.Nd5!

Less clear is 19.Qf3 Bxd4!, e.g. 20.Qf5 Kf8 21.Bxf7 Re5 22.Ne6+ Rxe6
23.Bxe6 Bxc3 24.bxc3 Qe7, Sukhodolsky-Carlsson, correspondence game
1986/89.

19…Nxd5?

This loses quickly. 19…Bxd4 is more stubborn, but also insufficient: 20.Nxe7+
Qxe7 21.Bxf7+! Kh8 (or 21…Kf8 22.Ba2!, with an attack) 22.Bd5 Bb6 23.Qd2
Ng4 24.Ra1! Bb7 25.Qc3+ Qf6 26.Qh3+ Nh6 27.Nf7+ Kh7 28.Nxh6 Qxh6
29.Qd7+, with winning play for White, Vitomskis-Klaic, correspondence game
1992/96.

20.Qh5 Bxd4

After 20…Nf6, 21.Bxf7+ Rxf7 22.Qxf7+ Kh8 23.Re3 decides.

21.Bxd5 Qe8

Or 21…Ne5 22.Qh7+ Kf8 23.Qh8 mate.

22.Re3! Bg7

The rook must not be taken: 22…Bxe3 23.Qh7+, and mate.

23.Rg3 Ne5 24.Qh7+ Kf8 25.Qh8+!

Black resigned in view of the amusing mate 25…Bxh8 26.Nh7.

RL 12.8

Volchok
 Klaic

Correspondence game 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.Re1 Bc5 8.c3 d6
9.d4 Bb6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 0-0 12.a4 exd4 13.axb5 axb5 14.Rxa8 Bxa8
15.cxd4 Re8 16.Qd3

All this can be found in the theory books. 16.Nc3 is also a good possibility. In
several games Black then played the risky 16…g5, after which White has
sacrificing options such as 17.Bxg5 and 17.Qd2, in both cases with favourable
complications.

16…Na5 17.Ba2!?

In view of the course of this game, there seems no need for voluntarily
exchanging on f6; but even then Black is facing an uphill struggle after 17.Bxf6
Qxf6 18.Bc2.

17…g5

There are cases in which this move is justified in this type of position, but
normally it isn’t. It is clear that White can sacrifice on g5, but it is often hard to
assess the correctness of the sacrifice beforehand. In this case, Black’s move
seems to hand White too many chances. Better possibilities are 17…Nc4, 17…
b4 and even 17…Kf8!?.
18.Nxg5! hxg5 19.Bxg5 Nc4?!

White was threatening 20.e5!, followed by 21.Qg6+!. More stubborn, however,

was 19…Bxe4, which is followed by 20.Rxe4 Rxe4 21.Qxe4 Nxe4 22.Bxd8
Bxd4 (after 22…Nc6 White plays 23.Bxc7! Bxc7 24.Bd5) 23.Bxc7 Nc4 24.Kf1
Nxf2 25.b3 Ne3+ 26.Ke2, with a good endgame for White, which he still has to
win, however (Volchok-Vukcevic, correspondence game 1978).

20.Nc3 Kg7

After a move like 20…c6 White wins with 21.Qg3, e.g. 21…Kf8 22.e5.

21.Nxb5 Nxb2 22.Qh3

Subtle! 22.Qb3 at once seems less clear after 22…Bd5, but 23.Bxf6+ Qxf6
24.Qg3+! (even 24.Qxd5 Nd3 25.Rf1 Nf4 26.e5!? is good for White) 24…Kf8
25.Bxd5 really leaves little to be desired as regards clarity.

22…Rh8 23.Qb3

White’s point. Black loses his knight and this decides the game. Equally strong
is the centralising move 23.Qf5. There isn’t a single defence against the
combined threat of 24.e5 and 24.Re3.

23…Qd7 24.Qxb2 d5 25.Bxf6+ Kxf6 26.e5+ Kg7 27.Re3 Bc6 28.Qb4 Rh4
29.e6

Black resigned.

RL 12.10

Nisipeanu
 Petek

Medellin 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.c3 Nxe4

The consequence of the black set-up. The white pawn centre is dismantled, but
White gets a strong initiative in return.

8.d4 exd4

In this position, 8…Na5 and 8…Be7 are good alternatives.

9.Re1 Na5 10.Ng5!?

10.Nbd2 simply yields White good play, e.g. 10…d5 11.Bxd5 Bxd5 12.Nxe4
Be7 13.Bg5 0-0 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Qxd4 Rad8 16.Ng3, but the text is more
interesting.

10…d5 11.Rxe4+!? dxe4 12.Bxf7+

After 12.Nxf7, 12…Qf6 seems to yield Black good chances, e.g.: 13.Nxh8 Nxb3
14.axb3 g6 or 13.Bg5!? Qf5 14.g4 Qg6!?

12…Ke7 13.Qh5

Another possibility is 13.Qg4!?, e.g. 13…Qd6 (13…Qd7 14.Be6 Qc6 15.Qh4

leads to perpetual check after 15…Ke8!: 16.Bf7+ Kd7 17.Be6+ Ke8) 14.Bf4 Qf6
15.Nd2 h5 16.Qh4 e3 17.cxd4 exd2 (after 17…exf2+ 18.Qxf2 Kd8 19.Be6!
Black is in trouble) 18.Bxd2 Kd8 19.Ne6+ Kc8 20.Qxf6 gxf6 21.Bxa5, and
White has good compensation for the exchange. Thus the analysis by Nisipeanu
and Stoica.

13…e3?!
According to Nisipeanu and Stoica, 13…Qd7 was better, although they add that
White keeps compensation for the exchange after 14.cxd4 g6! (14…Qxd4?! is
dubious in view of 15.Ne6) 15.Qh4 (but not 15.Bxg6? Qc6, with a double attack
on Bc1 and Bg6) 15…Bg7 16.d5!? Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Qxd5 18.Nc3. According to
the Polish player Panczyk, however, Black is better after 18…Qc6.

14.cxd4 Qxd4

No better is 14…exf2+ 15.Kf1, e.g. 15…Qxd4 16.Qe2+.

15.Bxe3 Qe5

Or 15…Qxb2 16.Qg4 (16.Bc5+ is also strong: 16…Kd8 17.Qd1+ Bd6 18.Bd4!,

with advantage) 16…Bc6 (16…Qxa1 17.Qe6+, and mate) 17.Qf4 Kd7 18.Bd4
Qc2 19.Be6+ Kd8 20.Nf7+ Ke8 21.Nc3, and Black won’t survive.

16.Nc3 g6

After 16…h6 White wins with 17.Be6.

17.Qg4 Rd8

Or 17…Bh6 18.Bc5+! Qxc5 19.Re1+, winning.

18.Re1 Kf6 19.Nd5+ Rxd5

There is nothing else.

20.Bxd5 Bc8 21.Qf3+ Bf5 22.Bd2

Total disaster. 23.Bc3 is deadly.

Black resigned.

RL 12.10

Hall
 Collinson

Oakham 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.c3 Nxe4 8.d4
Na5

The main line. The Spanish bishop is driven from its strong diagonal.

9.Nxe5

9.Bc2 is also possible.

9…Nxb3 10.Qxb3 Qf6

This is played more often than 10…Nd6, although the text is considerably less
solid.

11.f3 Nc5

Now 11…Nd6 is less good.

12.Ng4 Nxb3 13.Nxf6+ Ke7?!

An interesting but dubious idea. But after the normal 13…gxf6 White will
certainly also be better: 14.Re1+ Be7 15.axb3 d6 16.c4.

14.Bg5! Nxa1?

With this move Black is asking too much. 14…gxf6 15.Re1+ Kd6 16.Bf4+ Kc6
was called for, although his position is considerably worse after 17.axb3.

15.Re1+ Kd6
The attempt to vacate square b7 for the king with 15…Be4 fails to the double
check 16.Nd5++ (not 16.Nxe4 Ke6!) 16…Kd6 17.fxe4 Re8 18.Nd2 Rxe4
19.Nxe4 Kxd5 20.Nf2, with a large advantage.

16.Bf4+ Kc6 17.d5+

The black king is chased further and further up the board.

17…Kc5 18.b4+ Kc4 19.Na3+ Kxc3 20.Ne4+ Kxb4

Or 20…Kd3 21.Rd1+ Ke2 22.Rd2+ Ke1 23.Bg3 mate.

21.Rb1+ Kxa3 22.Nc3

Black resigned. He will be mated.

RL 12.10

Mortensen

Shirov

Kerteminde 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.c3 Nxe4 8.d4
Na5 9.Bc2 exd4 10.Qe2

For 10.b4, see the game Computer Fritz-Henley, 1993. Other playable
possibilities are 10.Nxd4 c5 11.Nf5 d5 12.Nd2 g6 13.Ng3 and 10.Re1 d5
11.Nxd4 c5 12.Nf5 g6 13.Ng3.

10…d5 11.Nxd4 c5 12.Nb3 Nxb3 13.axb3 Be7 14.Re1 0-0!?

This costs material, but we will see that Black will get good compensation. The
alternative was 14…Nf6 15.Bg5 Kf8, with an unclear position.
15.f3
15…f5!?

After 15…Bh4 16.fxe4 Bxe1 17.Qxe1 dxe4 18.Qg3 f5 19.Bf4 White has the
slightly better prospects, Mortensen-Sepp, Debrecen 1992.

16.fxe4 fxe4 17.c4

Shirov indicates 17.Nd2 as an alternative. After 17…Bd6 18.Nf1 Qh4 19.g3 Qf6
20.Bf4!? (or 20.Bd2 Rae8 21.Qg2 Qf7!, with the threat of 22…e3!) 20…Bxf4
21.gxf4 Qxf4 22.Ng3 the position is unclear.

17…Bd6 18.Qg4?

A bad move. Better was 18.g3, after which Black has a choice between 18…Be5
and 18…Qc7!?. In both cases Black has full compensation for the sacrificed
material.

18…Qf6 19.Be3 d4

Now Black gets back his piece in a winning position.

20.Nd2 Qe5! 21.g3 dxe3 22.Nxe4 Rae8 23.Rad1

After 23.Ng5 Black simply plays 23…h6.

23…Qxb2 24.Qe2

Or 24.Nxd6 Qxc2 25.Nxb7 Qf2+ 26.Kh1 e2 27.Rb1 Qf1+! 28.Rxf1 Rxf1+

29.Kg2 Rxb1, and White might as well resign.

24…Be5

Equally good was 24…Bxe4 25.Bxe4 Qxe2 26.Rxe2 Rxe4 27.Rxd6 bxc4
28.bxc4 Ra8, with a simply winning endgame.

25.Rb1 Qa3?

Black’s strongest option was 25…Qa2!, e.g. 26.Nxc5 g6 27.Nxb7 Rf2 28.Qxe3
Rxc2 29.Qe4 Bd4+! 30.Qxd4 Rg2+, and mate, or 26.Nf6+ Rxf6 27.Bxh7+ Kxh7
28.Qxa2 e2!, and the threat of 29…Bd4, mate, decides.

26.cxb5?

In time-trouble, White fails to take advantage! After 26.Ng5! g6 (26…h6 is met

by 27.Qd3) 27.Nxh7 Rf2 28.Qg4 Rg2+ 29.Kf1 Black has no more than perpetual
check: 29…Rf2+ 30.Kg1 Rg2+.

26…Bd4 27.Rf1 axb5 28.Rxf8+ Rxf8 29.Qxb5 Qa8 30.Qd3 Ba6

White resigned.

RL 12.10

Computer Fritz

Henley

United States 1993

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.c3 Nxe4 8.d4
Na5 9.Bc2 exd4 10.b4

An often-played move, but it’s unlikely to constitute the refutation of Black’s

play.

10…Nc4 11.Bxe4 Bxe4 12.Re1 d5

The weakening 12…f5 allows 13.Bg5! (13.Qxd4 d5! is less clear), e.g.: 13…Be7
14.Bxe7 Kxe7 15.Nbd2!, with a slight advantage.
13.Nxd4 c5!

13…Bd6 14.f3 Qh4 has also been tried several times, but 15.h3 Qg3 16.Nf5!
Qh2+ 17.Kf2 0-0-0 18.fxe4 dxe4 19.Qg4 Kb8 20.Qxe4! Rhe8 21.Qxe8 Rxe8
22.Rxe8+ Kb7 23.Re4 works out in White’s favour, as he has two rooks and a
piece for the queen; he is still behind in development, but it doesn’t look as if
Black will be able to exploit this.

14.bxc5

After 14.f3 cxd4 15.fxe4 Be7 16.Qxd4 0-0 17.exd5 Bf6 18.Qd3 Re8 19.Rf1
Qb6+ 20.Kh1 Rad8 Black has an excellent position.

14…Bxc5 15.f3 0-0 16.fxe4 dxe4 17.Rxe4

The pin on Be4 along the e-file has cost Black a piece, but he has good
compensation. White lags behind in development, and the central position of
Nd4 may be threatened after the undermining b5-b4. According to
Mikhalchishin, 17.Kh1 is also a possibility, e.g. 17…Re8 18.Be3 Nxe3 19.Rxe3
b4 20.Nd2 Bxd4 21.cxd4 Qxd4, with unclear play.

17…Qd5
18.Qd3

White has all kinds of alternatives here: 18.Qe2, 18.Rf4, 18.Re1, 18.Qf3 and
18.Rh4. It would go too far to delve into them more deeply. Black at any rate has
good chances.

18…Rad8 19.Rh4 g6

19…f5 has also been played; White then goes 20.Bg5, with an unclear position
after both 20…Rd6 and 20…Rde8.

20.Nd2

It is doubtful whether White has anything better here. The white position is quite
difficult to play. The double pin on Nd4 is annoying, b5-b4 is constantly in the
air, and the white rook is not well placed on h4. In short: Black has very good
compensation for his piece.

Remarkably enough, the computer, whose main strength, after all, is the razor-
sharp calculation of tactical possibilities, fails to find an effective reply and is
overrun quite quickly.

20…Ne5 21.Qg3 b4! 22.Nb3 bxc3

According to the black player, 22…Ba7 was an alternative.

23.Qxc3 Bb6 24.Rb1 a5 25.a4

White had no choice; Black was threatening 25…a4.

25…Rfe8 26.Be3

Logical. White provides extra cover for Nd4, and the b6-g1 diagonal is
reinforced. But now Black shatters the white position.

26…Rc8
27.Qa1

There is nothing better. After 27.Qd2 Nc4 the game is finished, and the same
goes for 27.Qe1 Nc4 28.Rh3 Nxe3 29.Rxe3 Bxd4.

27…Nf3+!

The start of the execution!

28.gxf3 Rxe3 29.Kg2

Or 29.Kh1 Rxf3 30.Nxf3 Qxf3 mate, or else 29.Re4 Rxb3, or 29.Kf1 Rxf3+
30.Nxf3 Qxf3+ 31.Ke1 Bf2+ 32.Kd2 (32.Kf1 Be3+ 33.Ke1 Qf2+ 34.Kd1 Qf1
mate) 32…Qe3+ 33.Kd1 Qe1 mate.

29…Rc2+!

The computer had surely seen this coming…

30.Nxc2 Qxf3+ 31.Kg1 Re1

Mate.

RL 13.2

Bagirov

Khalilbeili

Baku 1961
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Qe2

The difference between this Worrall Variation and the main line resides in the
positions of the major pieces; here the queen is usually on e2 and rook on d1,
whereas the rook would normally go to e1.

6…b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 Bg4

Also good is 8…Na5 9.Bc2 c5, with roughly equal play.

9.a4 b4 10.Qc4?

This looks exceedingly strong: both c6 and f7 are attacked. But Black has a
surprising riposte. Instead of the text, 10.a5 would have yielded White a good
position, e.g. 10…0-0 11.h3 Be6 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.d4.

10…Na5 11.Qxf7+

White must bite the bullet, as 11.Qxb4 is met by 11…c5 12.Qa3 c4 13.Bc2 d5!.

11…Kd7

Now Black is threatening 12…Rf8.

12.Ng5 Nxb3 13.Qxb3 h6 14.f3

This leads to a losing position almost by force, but 14.Nf7 Qg8 and 14.Nf3 Nxe4
also favour Black.

14…hxg5 15.fxg4
15…Rxh2!

With this beautiful sacrifice Black rounds off a great job in style.

16.Rxf6

After 16.Kxh2 Nxg4+ 17.Kg3 Qh8! the game is finished, e.g. 18.Rf7 (or
18.Kxg4 Qh4+ 19.Kf3 Rf8+) 18…Qh4+ 19.Kf3 Qf2+ 20.Kxg4 Qxg2+ 21.Kf5
(or 21.Kh5 Rh8+ 22.Kg6 Qxe4+ 23.Rf5 Qh1!) 21…Qh3+ 22.Kg6 Qh6+ 23.Kf5
Rh8, followed by 24…g6+, and mate.

16…gxf6 17.Kxh2 Qh8+ 18.Kg3

In a later game Bely-Lengyel, Hastings 1963/64, White tried 18.Kg1. The result
was 18…Qh4 19.Qd1 Rh8 20.Kf1 Qh1+ 21.Ke2 Qxg2+ 22.Kd3 Rh1 23.Qb3
Qf1+, and White resigned.

18…Qh4+ 19.Kf3 Qe1 20.Na3 Rh8 21.d4 f5! 22.gxf5 g4+!

White resigned in view of 23.Kxg4 Qe2+ 24.Kg3 Bh4+ 25.Kh3 Bf2+, and mate.

RL 13.2

Schoisswohl

Caputto

Correspondence game 1956

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Qe2 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a4 Bg4

After 8…Rb8 9.axb5 axb5 10.c3 White is slightly better.

9.c3 0-0 10.axb5

An interesting reply to 10.h3 is 10…Na5, e.g. 11.Bxf7+ Rxf7 12.hxg4 Nb3!?

13.Ra3 Nxc1 14.Rxc1 h6!?, with good counterplay, e.g. 15.axb5 axb5 16.Rxa8
Qxa8 17.Qxb5 (17.Re1!? may be stronger) 17…Qxe4, or 15.g5 Nh5! 16.gxh6
Nf4.

10…axb5 11.Rxa8 Qxa8 12.Qxb5 Na7! 13.Qa5

In the well-known game Fine-Keres, AVRO tournament 1938, 13.Qe2 Qxe4

14.Qxe4 Nxe4 15.d4 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Ng5 turned out to be good for Black.

13…Qxe4 14.Qxa7 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Qxb1 16.Qxc7 Qg6+ 17.Kh1 Qd3 18.Qc4

Or 18.Kg1 Qg6+ 19.Kh1 Qd3 20.Kg1, with a draw by perpetual check, Ilievski-
Matanovic, Skopje 1968. After the text Black also forces perpetual check.

18…Qxf3+ 19.Kg1 d5 20.Qh4 Ne4! 21.Qxe7 Qg4+

Draw.

RL 13.2

Tiviakov

Grischuk

Linares 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Qe2 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.d3

Here, with the queen on e2, the situation differs from that in the Marshall Attack.
Now 9.exd5?! is slightly suspect. Black can choose between 9…Nxd5 10.Nxe5
Nxe5 (10…Nf4 is also possible) 11.Qxe5 Ãb7 and 9…Ãg4 10.dxc6 e4.

9…Bb7

Also possible is 9…d4, e.g. 10.cxd4 Nxd4 11.Nxd4 Qxd4 12.Be3 Qd6 13.Rc1,
with roughly equal play.

10.Re1

White has a wide choice here. 10.Bg5, 10.Nbd2 and 10.Rd1 are alternatives.

10…Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.a3 Qd7

12…Na5 13.Ba2 c5 is also playable.

13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Ne4

14…f5!?

This looks very risky, but White has nothing decisive. Bad, at any rate, is 14…
h6? 15.Bxh6! gxh6 16.Bxd5 Qxd5? 17.Nf6+, and Black loses his queen. 14…
Na5?! 15.Ba2 c5 is also dubious now in view of 16.b4! cxb4 17.axb4 Nc6
18.Nfg5!, e.g. 18…f6 19.Nxh7! Kxh7 20.Qh5+ Kg8 21.Re3 Ne7 22.Rh3 Qe6
23.Bg5 fxg5 24.Nxg5 1-0, Diaz-Van Riemsdijk, Havana 1991, or 18…h6
19.Qh5 Rad8 20.Nf3 Nf4 21.Bxf4 exf4 22.Neg5 Rxe1+ 23.Rxe1 Qf5 24.Bxf7+
Kh8 25.Be6 1-0, Estrada-Toth, Budapest 1995. Each time we see the great power
of the white bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal! Also, after 14…Rad8 15.Bg5 Be7
(15…f6? won’t work in view of 16.Bxf6) 16.Rad1 White had a slightly better
position in Short-Z.Almasi, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

15.Ba2

On 15.Neg5?! Black simply plays 15…h6, e.g. 16.c4 bxc4 17.dxc4 Nf6 18.c5+
Nd5, with good play, while 15.Nh4 Na5 16.Ba2 fxe4 17.dxe4 c6 18.Bg5 Qf7
19.Rad1 Nc4 20.exd5 cxd5 21.Nf3 Bd6 also fails to yield White an advantage,
according to Grischuk.

15…Kh8

Now the pin had been lifted. 15…fxe4?! 16.dxe4 is good for White, of course.

16.Nfg5!

According to Grischuk, both 16.Ng3 g6 and 16.Neg5 h6 17.Nh4 hxg5 18.Ng6+

Kg8 19.Qh5 Re6 are good for Black.

16…h6!

Certainly not 16…fxe4? 17.dxe4, and now 17…Nf6 is impossible in view of

18.Nf7+ Kg8 19.Nxe5+.

17.Qh5

Interesting, but less good is 17.Nd6?! cxd6 18.Bxd5 in view of 18…Nd4!

19.cxd4 Bxd5.
17…fxe4 18.dxe4

And here 18.Nf7+?! is less good: 18…Kg8 19.dxe4 Qxf7 20.Bxd5 Re6, with
advantage for Black. After the text the game is heading for perpetual check.

18…Nf6 19.Nf7+ Kh7 20.Ng5+

Draw.

RL 14.3

Wittmann

Malinin

Correspondence game 1990/91

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Bxc6

In Holland, the Delayed Exchange Variation is sometimes called the Steenwijk

Variation, after the fifth match game Euwe-Kramer, Steenwijk 1940.

6…dxc6 7.Re1

7.Nxe5 does nothing for White: 7…Nxe4 8.Re1 Nd6, and Black, with his two
bishops, is fine. A quiet set-up is 7.d3 Nd7 8.Nbd2, with chances on both sides.

Interestingly, after 7.Qe2 Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.g4 Bg6 10.Nxe5 Bxe4 11.g5 Black has
the same trick as in the present game: 11…Rg8! 12.Nc3 (in McDonald-Wells,
London 1998, things went awry very rapidly with 12.d3 Bf5 13.Re1 Bxh3
14.Kh2 Be6 15.gxf6 gxf6 16.Nf3 Qd5 17.Kh1 Bd6, and White resigned) 12…
Bf5 13.Re1 Nd7 14.Nc4 Nf8 15.Qf3 Be6 16.Na5 Bd5 17.Nxd5 Qxd5, with good
play for Black, Hansen-Hector, Reykjavik 1995.

For 7.Nc3, see Boey-Miclot, correspondence game 1986.

7…Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.g4?!

White is going to capture the e5 pawn, but he would have been wiser to go 9.d3,
e.g. 9…Nd7 10.Nbd2 f6 11.Nf1 Nc5 12.Ng3, with good play for White in
Savon-Furman, Soviet Union 1975.

9…Bg6 10.Nxe5 Bxe4! 11.g5

The point of White’s play. It looks like he is going to win a piece.

11…Rg8!

But with this magnificent resource Black refutes the white concept.

12.gxf6

After the game the Polish master Przewoznik gave 12.Kf1 as strong, but Malinin
then indicated 12…Bf5!, and White can play neither 13.gxf6, in view of 13…
Bxh3+ 14.Ke2 Qd4, nor 13.Qf3, in view of 13…Qc8 14.gxf6 Bxh3+ 15.Ke2
gxf6.

12…gxf6+ 13.Ng4 f5 14.Kf1 Qd6!

Things are happening fast; White is doomed.

15.Nc3 Bh1!

A nice final move. White resigned. After 16.Ne3, 16…Qh6! wins, while 16.Ke2
Bg2 17.Ne3 (or 17.Rg1 Rxg4!) 17…Bxh3 18.Rh1 Qh6 19.d3 f4 20.Nc4 Rg2
21.Qe1 0-0-0 yields Black a winning attack.

RL 14.4

Boey

Miclot

Correspondence game 1986

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.h3
Bh5 9.g4

Quieter and safer continuations are 9.Re1 and 9.d3.

9…Bg6

The sacrifice 9…Nxg4!? also comes into consideration; after 10.hxg4 Bxg4
11.Kg2 Black can continue 11…Qd6, 11…Qc8 or 11…Bc5, but the position is
anything but clear.

10.Nxe5 Nxe4 11.Re1?!

A slightly dubious idea from Pickett. After simply 11.Nxg6 Nxc3 12.dxc3 hxg6
13.Qxd8+ Rxd8 the position is equal, Matulovic-Spassky, Vrnjacka Banja 1965.

11…Nxc3 12.bxc3 0-0 13.Rb1

So this must be the point. But Black can safely ignore the threat to pawn b7.

13…Bd6! 14.Rxb7 Qf6

14…Qh4!? is another possibility, e.g. 15.Kg2 Bxe5 16.Rxe5 f5, with an attack.

15.d4

After 15.Nxg6 Black plays 15…fxg6!.

15…Rae8 16.f4 Qh4

17.Kg2

17.f5 is met by the winning 17…f6! 18.fxg6 fxe5.

17…c5 18.f5

Also losing is 18.Nf3? Rxe1 19.Qxe1 Qxe1 20.Nxe1 Be4+, and the greedy Rb7
is lost. 18.Bd2 f5 favours Black, too, e.g. 19.Qf3 Bxe5 20.Rxe5 Rxe5 21.dxe5
Qd8 22.Be3 Bf7!, Salomon-Owen, correspondence game 1982/84. Again the
position of Rb7 turns out to be disastrous.

18…f6 19.Bf4 Bf7

After 19…fxe5 White now has the intermediate move 20.Bg3.

20.Bg3 Bd5+ 21.Kh2 Qxg3+! 22.Kxg3 Bxb7

Now Black wins the e5 knight into the bargain, after which, with a rook and two
bishops for the queen, he has a winning position. White is still thrashing a bit,
but in a higher sense he is, from this point on, fighting a lost cause.

23.Qd3 fxe5?!

Stronger, according to the black player, was 23…g6! 24.Qc4+ Kg7. The e5
knight isn’t going anywhere fast.

24.Qc4+ Kh8 25.dxc5 Be7 26.c6 Bc8 27.Qe4 Bd6 28.Kg2 Rf6 29.Rf1 Ref8
30.c4 g6 31.c5 Bxc5 32.fxg6?

After 32.Qxe5 Bd6 33.Qc3 things would not have been completely clear,
according to the black player.

32…Rxf1 33.Qxe5+ R8f6 34.Qxc5 hxg6 35.Qe7 Be6 36.Qd8+ Kh7 37.Qxc7+
Rf7 38.Qe5 Bxa2 39.Kg3 R1f6 40.Qa5 Bc4

White resigned.
RL 15.2

Lehikoinen

Sorri

Correspondence game 1979

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 Be7

This transposition from the Open Ruy Lopez brings us to a sideline of the
Spanish Centre Attack.

7.Re1 f5 8.d5

Here, 8.dxe5 0-0 9.Bb3+ Kh8 10.Bd5 (10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 is another good
idea: despite the doubled pawns White is slightly better) 10…Nc5 11.Nc3 would
have yielded White a slight advantage.

8…Na5!?

Less good is 8…Nb8?! 9.Nxe5 0-0 10.d6! Bxd6 11.Qd5+ Kh8 12.Nf7+ Rxf7
13.Qxf7 Bxh2+ 14.Kf1!, with advantage for White.

9.Nxe5 0-0 10.c3

An important moment in the variation under discussion. An obvious move is

10.d6 Bxd6 11.Qd5+ Kh8 12.Nf7+ (12.Qxa5? b5 is good for Black, as Ne5 is
hanging!), but after 12…Rxf7 13.Qxf7 Bxh2+! 14.Kf1 b5 15.Bb3 Nxb3 16.axb3
Bb7 Black has good compensation for the exchange.
10…Bc5
11.Re2?!

11.Nd3! is stronger: 11…Ba7 12.Be3 Bxe3 13.Rxe3 b5 14.Bb3 Nxb3 15.axb3

Bb7 16.f3, with slightly better play for White, Lederman-Pytel, Le Havre 1977.

11…d6 12.Nf3 Nc4 13.Bc2 Re8 14.Qe1

14.b3 Ne5 also favours Black, Karpov-Nicevski, Skopje 1976.

14…Bd7! 15.b3?

This is refuted, but 15.Bxe4 fxe4 16.Rxe4 Qf6! 17.Nbd2 Qg6! is quite good for
Black as well, e.g. 18.Rxe8+ Rxe8 19.Qd1 Bg4 20.b3 Ne5.

15…Nxf2! 16.Nd4

This is what White had pinned his hopes on; both Nc4 and Nf2 are attacked.

16…Ng4! 17.h3

17.bxc4 is met by 17…Qf6! 18.Bb2 (the only way to cover d4) 18…Rxe2
19.Qxe2 Re8 20.Qd2 Qe5 21.g3 Bxd4+ 22.cxd4 Qe1+ 23.Qxe1 Rxe1+ 24.Kg2
Re2+ 25.Kg1 Rxc2, and White might as well resign; also bad is 17.Rxe8+ Qxe8
18.Qxe8+ Rxe8, and Black is threatening mate on e1.

17…Rxe2 18.Qxe2 Qh4! 19.Bxf5

After 19.bxc4 Black simply plays 19…Re8, and wins.

19…Bxf5 20.hxg4 Bxg4 21.Qe4

After 21.Qxc4 Re8 22.Bd2 (or 22.Nd2 Re1+ 23.Nf1 Be2) 22…Re2 White has to
give his queen.

21…Ne5

The game is finished; White’s queenside, the infamous ‘Spanish queenside’ is

still totally undeveloped.
22.b4 Bb6 23.Nd2 Rf8 24.Qe3 Bd1!

White resigned. The threat of 25…Ng4 is deadly.

RL 15.5

Marjanovic

Yilmaz

Pucarevo 1987

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.0-0 Be7 7.e5

A more common alternative is 7.Re1, when Black can choose between the sharp
7…b5 8.e5 Nxe5 and the solid 7…0-0 8.e5 Ne8

7…Ne4 8.Nxd4

Grandmaster Torre from the Philippines has played the gambit 8.b4 a few times.
Accepting it will give White some chances, but after the cool 8…0-0 this move
looks very much like a shot in the dark.

8…Nxd4

The alternative is 8…0-0, when White can play 9.Nf5, and the position offers
roughly equal chances.

9.Qxd4 Nc5 10.Nc3 Nxa4?!

Stronger is 10…0-0, e.g. 11.Nd5 d6! 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.exd6 Qxd6 14.Qxd6
cxd6 15.Bb3 Nxb3 16.axb3 Bf5, with a totally equal position.

11.Qxa4 0-0 12.Bf4 b5

According to Marjanovic, 12…d5!? was a better alternative.

13.Qd4

After 13.Nxb5? Black has the trick 13…Rb8, and White loses a piece after both
14.Nc3 and 14.Nd4: 14…Rb4.

13…Bb7 14.Rad1 Bc6

Thanks to the pressure he is exerting along the d-file, White is clearly better.

15.Nd5! Re8 16.Rd3 Bf8 17.Bg3!

With the threat of 18.Bh4, followed by 19.Nf6+.

17…Qc8?

Black’s only chance was 17…d6, although White hangs on to his advantage with
18.Nb4, e.g. 18…Bxg2 19.Kxg2 c5 20.Qd5 cxb4 21.exd6.
18.Nf6+!

‘A fine example of an intuitive sacrifice’, Marjanovic says here. He obviously

hadn’t calculated the continuation through to the end.

18…gxf6 19.Bh4 Re6

19…Be7 is met by the winning 20.Qf4! (but not 20.exf6? Bf8 21.Rg3+ Kh8
22.Qg4, and Black can defend with 22…Bh6: 23.Qh5 Bf4 24.Qxf7 Rg8 25.Rg7
Be4) 20…Qd8 21.exf6 Bf8 22.Rg3+ Kh8 23.Qg5 (Marjanovic).

20.Rg3+ Kh8 21.Qg4 Bh6 22.Qxe6!

A beautiful second sacrifice that forces the win.

22…fxe6 23.Bxf6+ Bg7 24.Rxg7 h5

After 24…h6 Marjanovic had indicated the following winning line: 25.Rd1 Qf8
26.Rgxd7+ Kg8 27.Rxc7 Qc5 (27…Be4 28.Rdd7) 28.Rd3 Qxc2 (28…Qb6
29.Rg3+ Kf8 30.Rcg7, and Black is mated) 29.Rg3+ Kf8 30.h3, and Black is
powerless against the threat 31.Rcg7.

25.Rd1 Qf8 26.Rg5+!

Far stronger than 26.Rf7+.

26…Kh7 27.Rxh5+ Kg6 28.Rg5+ Kf7

Or 28…Kh6 29.Rg4 Kh5 30.Rdd4.

29.Rd4 Qh6 30.Rf4! Qh7 31.Rfg4 Kf8 32.Rg7 Qh8 33.Be7+ Ke8 34.Bb4

Black resigned. Quite elegant all this!

RL 15.6
 Sukhanov

Zaitsev

Moscow 1965

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.d4 exd4 7.e5 Ne4 8.Nxd4
0-0 9.c4?!

A speculative pawn sacrifice. Better is 9.Nf5 d5 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.Nxe7+ Qxe7

12.Re1, with roughly equal chances. I’ll give you one example, in which we see
White come to terrible grief: 12…f6 13.f3 Ng5 14.Nc3 Rb8 15.Qd2 Ne6
16.Na4? fxe5 17.Rxe5 Qd6 18.Re2 Rb4! 19.b3 Rh4! 20.g3 Nd4 21.Rf2 Nxf3+!
22.Rxf3 Rxf3 23.gxh4 Bh3 24.Bb2 Rf4! 25.Kh1 d4 26.Nc3 c5, and White
resigned in view of the threat 27…Qc6, Koch-Krebs, correspondence game
1955.

9…Nxe5!?

Will this not lose a piece? The old game Alekhine-Teichmann, Karlsbad 1911,
saw 9…Nc5 10.Bc2 Nxe5 11.Qh5 Ng6 12.f4 d6 13.f5 Bf6!, with good play for
Black, but 12.b4! seems to be an improvement on White’s play.

10.Re1 Nxf2 11.Kxf2 Bc5 12.Kg3

Not a beauty, but 12.Rxe5 runs into 12…Qf6+; 12.Be3 is met by 12…Qh4+
13.Kg1 Ng4, and wins; and 12.g3 Qf6+ 13.Kg1 Bxd4+ 14.Qxd4? Nf3+ costs the
queen. 12.Re4 Nxc4 13.Kg1 d5 is also unpleasant for White.

But 12.Kf1 should not be dismissed out of hand: 12…Qf6+ 13.Nf3 Ng4
14.Qd3!? Nxh2+ 15.Ke2 Re8+ 16.Kd1 Rxe1+ 17.Kxe1, with chances on both
sides.
12…Qf6

In the correspondence game Kling-Cimmeno, 1993/94, Black had all the chances
after 12…Nxc4 13.Bc2 d5 14.Nf5 g6 15.Nh6+ Kg7 16.Nc3 c6.

13.Bc2 Ng6 14.Nf3 d5!

15.Nc3?

This loses at once. A useful defence would have been 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.Rxe3
Qxb2 17.Nc3. Black has a handful of pawns for the piece and an attack, but
White is still in the running.

15…Qd6?! 16.Ne5 Qf6

Black quickly has to retrace his steps. Apparently, he had just spotted the
winning continuation.

17.Nf3 Qb6!

There is no useful remedy against the double threat 18…Bf2, mate, and 18…
Bd6.

18.Be3 Bxe3 19.Rxe3 Qxe3 20.Nxd5 Qc5 21.Qe2 c6 22.Nc3 Bf5 23.Bxf5 Qxf5
24.Qe3 Rfe8 25.Qg5 Qxg5 26.Nxg5 Rad8 27.Nf3 Ne5

And White finally resigned.

RL 17.2

Djuric

Kotzem

Correspondence game 1975

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Be7 7.Re1 0-0 8.c3 d5

The Marshall Attack, famous and infamous in equal measure.

First an example in which White declines the pawn sacrifice. White can also
avoid the gambit with 8.a4, which will be dealt with below.

9.d4 Nxe4

Also good is 9…exd4 10.e5 Ne4, e.g. 11.Nxd4 Nxe5 12.f3 c5 13.fxe4 (after
13.Bf4?! Bf6! 14.Bxe5?! things go bad for Black: 14…Bxe5 15.Nc6 Bxh2+!
16.Kxh2 Qh4+ 17.Kg1 Qf2+ 18.Kh2 Qg3+ 19.Kg1 Ng5! 20.Kh1 Qh4+ 21.Kg1
Nh3+! 22.gxh3 Bxh3 23.Ne7+ Kh8 24.Re2 Rae8 25.Qe1 Qg5+ 26.Kh2 Rxe7
27.Kxh3 Re6 28.Rxe6 fxe6 29.Qg3 Qc1, and Black wins, Kruppa-Vladimirov,
Frunze 1988) 13…cxd4 14.cxd4 Bg4 15.Qd2 Nc4.

10.dxe5 Be6

Via transposition of moves a position from the Open Ruy Lopez has arisen in
which White has played the less common, and also less strong, 10.Re1.

11.Nd4

The Breslau Variation.

11…Nxe5!? 12.f3 Bd6!

Weaker is 12…c5?! 13.fxe4 cxd4 14.exd5 Bg4 15.Qxd4 Bf6 16.Rxe5 Bxe5
17.Qxe5, with advantage for White.

13.fxe4

13.Bf4 is met solidly by 13…Nc4.

13…Bg4 14.Qc2

14.Qd2 may be followed by 14…Qh4 15.g3 (less good is 15.h3 c5!, e.g.
16.hxg4?! cxd4 17.Qf2 Qxg4 18.Bd2 Qg6 19.Qxd4 Bc7 20.Be3 dxe4, and Black
has a strong attack, Wolf-Tarrasch, Karlsbad 1923) 15…Qh5 16.Qg5 Qh3
17.Qh4 Qxh4 18.gxh4 c5 19.Nf5 Bxf5 20.exf5 Nf3+ 21.Kf2 Nxe1 22.Kxe1 c4
23.Bc2 Bxh2, with an unclear position. Thus an analysis from Pliester.

14…c5 15.Nxb5?!

The old game Teichmann-John, Breslau 1913, saw 15.Bxd5 cxd4 16.Bxa8 Qh4
17.Rf1 d3 18.Qf2 Qxf2+ 19.Rxf2 Rxa8, with an unclear position and roughly
equal chances. Black has compensation for the exchange he is down.

15…axb5 16.Bxd5 Qh4 17.Rf1 Ra6! 18.Na3?

This loses at once, but 18.Bf4 c4 19.Na3 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 Nd3 also favours Black.
His attack is still going.
18…Nf3+!

This is how Black slices open the white king position.

19.gxf3 Bh3 20.Rf2 Bxh2+! 21.Kh1

After 21.Rxh2 Qe1, mate, it is curtains at once, while 21.Kxh2 is met by 21…
Rg6, followed by a deadly discovered check from Bh3.

21…Rg6 22.Bg5 Qh5!

Maintaining all the threats; now 22…Rxg5? could be met by 23.Rxh2.

23.Bh4

Or 23.Rxh2 Qxf3+ 24.Rg2 Rxg5 25.Rg1 Rh5, and mate, or else 23.Kxh2 Rxg5,
and White is mated, too.

23…Bf4! 24.Rg1 Rh6!

White resigned. There are still two bishops on the h-file, but not for long; at
most two moves, and the game is finished. A gem of a game!

RL 17.3

Gal

Mendow

Correspondence game 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 Nf6

This is how Marshall played it, and many people after him. These days,
however, Black virtually only plays 11…c6.

12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Ng4 14.h3 Nxf2 15.Qf3

It is generally known that 15.Kxf2? loses: 15…Qh4+ 16.Kf1 Bxh3!, e.g. 17.Be3
Bg4 18.Qd3 Rae8 19.Nd2 Bg3.

15…Qh4
16.Bd2!

And 16.Qxf2? is a well-known mistake: 16…Bh2+! (but not 16…Bg3? at once

in view of 17.Qxf7+! Rxf7 18.Re8 mate!) 17.Kf1 Bg3 18.Qe2 Bxh3! 19.gxh3
Rae8, Matanovic-Matulovic, Belgrade 1954.

The move 16.Re8? looks good but loses: 16…Nxh3+! 17.gxh3 Bb7! 18.Rxf8+
Rxf8, e.g. 19.Qxb7 Qe1+ 20.Kg2 Re8 or 19.d5 Qe1+ 20.Qf1 Bh2+ 21.Kg2
Qg3+ 22.Kh1 Re8 23.Bd2 Re2 24.Bf4 Qd3! 25.Bxh2 Rxh2+.

16.Re2! is a good alternative, however, e.g. 16…Ng4? 17.g3! Qxh3 (on 17…
Bxg3 comes 18.Qxf7+, and mate!) 18.Qxa8, or 16…Bg4 17.hxg4 Bh2+ 18.Kf1
Bg3 19.Rxf2 Qh1+ 20.Ke2 Bxf2 (or 20…Qxc1 21.Rf1) 21.Bd2!, with advantage
for White, Capablanca-Marshall, New York 1918, the game in which the
Marshall Attack was introduced into grandmaster practice!

16…Bb7

No better for Black is 16…Bxh3 17.gxh3 Nxh3+ 18.Kf1 g5 19.Re4! Bf4

20.Bxf4 Nxf4 21.Nd2 Rad8 22.Rxf4! gxf4 23.Ne4, with advantage for White,
Aronin-Demuria, Tbilisi 1957.

17.Qxb7 Nd3 18.Re2!

Bad is 18.Rf1? in view of 18…Qg3 19.Rxf7 Kh8.

18…Qg3 19.Kf1 Nf4

19…Qh2 is effectively met by 20.g4 Qxh3+ 21.Qg2.

20.Bxf4?!

The correct move here is 20.Rf2!, e.g. 20…Qh2 21.Bxf4 Bxf4 22.g3! Qxh3+
23.Qg2 Qxg3 24.Bxf7+! Kh8 25.Qxg3 Bxg3 26.Rf3, with a winning position for
White, according to Nunn. 20…Qd3+ 21.Kg1 Ne2+ 22.Rxe2 Qxe2 23.Qf3 Qxf3
24.gxf3 also favours White.

20…Qxf4+ 21.Qf3 Qc1+ 22.Kf2 Bh2!

Threatening mate!

23.Rd2?

And this is really bad! Better was 23.Qe4!, with, for example, the interesting
continuation 23…g6 24.Re1 Qxb2+ 25.Qc2 Qxa1 26.Rd1 b4 27.cxb4 Be5!
28.Nc3 Bxd4+!, and roughly equal chances, Titjen-Tistrup, correspondence
game 1966.

23…Bg1+ 24.Kg3

Or 24.Ke2 Rae8+.

24…Rae8 25.Qd1 Re3+ 26.Kg4 Rfe8! 27.Bd5

Or 27.Qxc1 R8e4+, and mate.

27…Qxd1+ 28.Rxd1 Bh2

This cannot possibly work out for White.

29.Nd2 h5+ 30.Kxh5 g6+ 31.Kg5 Kg7 32.Nf1

Or 32.Rf1 Rg3+.

32…R8e4!

White resigned; play continues 33.Bxe4 Rxe4 34.g4 f6+ 35.Kh4 g5+ 36.Kh5
Re8, and mate.

RL 17.4

Al-Modiahki

Tan Chun
Kuala Lumpur 1993

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.Re1 Bd6 13.d3

This restrained move instead of the usual 13.d4 has a concrete point.

13…Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4

Now the difference becomes clear. In the main line with 13.d4 the rook would
not be covered now, which allows the reply 15…g5 (16.Bxg5? Qf5, winning a
piece). Now Black will have to look for salvation elsewhere.

15…Nf6 16.Rh4 Qf5 17.d4 g5?

Better is 17…Qg6 18.Bc2 Bf5, with chances on both sides.

18.Bc2 Qd5 19.c4! bxc4

19…Qxc4 is met decisively by 20.Bxg5.

20.Nc3 Qa5 21.Rh6 Kg7 22.Rxf6!

This exchange sacrifice is the start of a winning attack.

22…Kxf6 23.Qh5

The main threat now is 24.Bxg5+ Qxg5 25.Ne4+.

23…Ke7

Or 23…Bf5 24.Qxg5+ Ke6 25.d5+, and the game is finished.

24.Bxg5+ Kd7

After 24…f6 White wins the queen with 25.Bxf6+.

25.Ne4 Be7 26.Qh6 Qd8

Or 26…Qd5 27.Bxe7 Kxe7 28.Re1 Be6 29.Qf6+ Kd7 30.Nc5+ Kc7 31.Rxe6,
winning. Thus Leisebein-Ziersch, correspondence game 1988!

27.Bf4 f5

Or 27…Ke8 28.Nd6+, and Black might as well resign.

28.Nc5+ Bxc5 29.dxc5 Qf6 30.Rd1+ Ke8 31.Re1+ Kd7 32.Bxf5+

Black resigned: 32…Qxf5 33.Qd6 mate.

RL 17.4

Svidler

Sokolov

Groningen 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d3 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Re4 Qd7

A strange retreat, at first sight. Black is happy with the weakening he has forced,
and regroups. Despite the extra pawn, the white position is difficult to play.

16.Nd2 Bb7 17.Re1 c5 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Bg5

All this has been played so very often. 19.a4 b4, and only then 20.Bg5, has also
been tried. 20.d4 is another possibility.

19…f6

After 19…Rad8?! 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Qh5 White was better in the game Smagin-
Nunn, Dortmund 1991.

20.Bd2

Less good is 20.c4?!. In Granski-Vitomskis, correspondence game 1994, there

followed 20…Nb4! 21.Bf4 Kh8 22.Qh5 f5 23.Ng5 Bxg5 24.Bxg5 bxc4 25.dxc4
Qc6 26.f3 g6 27.Qh3 Qxf3 28.Re7 Qh1+, and White resigned.

20…Kh8
21.c4?!

Here, too, this is dubious. Stronger is 21.Qh5, e.g. 21…f5 22.Ng5 Bxg5 23.Bxg5
Qc6 24.f3 c4 25.Bc2 b4!, with a difficult battle and roughly equal chances,
Ernst-I.Sokolov, Debrecen 1992. 21.f3 f5 22.Nf2 is another possibility.

21…Nb4! 22.Bxb4 cxb4 23.cxb5 f5 24.Nd2

The intermediate move 24.bxa6? is bad: 24…Rxa6 25.Nd2 f4, followed by …

Rh6, with winning play.

24…axb5

24…f4!? at once was a good alternative.

25.Re6 Bf6 26.Nf3 f4

A logical move, but 26…Bd5 27.Bxd5 Qxd5 28.Qe2 Bxb2 was also strong.

27.d4

Bad was 27.Ne5? Bxe5 28.Rxe5 fxg3 29.hxg3 Ra6!, again followed by …Rh6.
27.gxf4 Rae8 28.f5 Bxb2 29.Rb1 Rxf5 would also have been very good for
Black.

27…fxg3 28.hxg3 Bxf3 29.Qxf3 Bxd4 30.Qc6?

This loses at once. 30.Qd5 was relatively best, but after 30…Qxd5 31.Bxd5
Rad8 32.Bc6 Bxf2+ 33.Kg2 Rd3 Black keeps a large advantage. Despite the
queen swap he continues his attack.

30…Bxf2+ 31.Kg2 Qd3! 32.Rg6

A final trick: 32…hxg6? 33.Rh1 mate!

32…Be1!

Black doesn’t fall for it. White resigned. After 33.Rxe1, 33…Qd2+ is decisive.
RL 17.4

Karelin

Erofeev

Correspondence game 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Be7 7.Re1 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d3 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Re4 Qf5 16.Rh4

Rather ambitious. The most commonly played move is 16.Nd2, yet the great
expert of the black side of this line, Michael Adams, has scored good results
against it. It was only against Anand, in Dortmund 2000, that things went wrong:
16.Nd2 Qg6 17.Re1 f5 18.a4 Rb8 19.axb5 axb5 20.Ne4! fxe4 21.dxe4 Bg4
22.Qd4 Bf3! 23.exd5 c5 24.Qh4 Rbe8 25.Be3, and now 25…Re5, instead of
Black’s 25…Qf5!?, would have been good.

16…Bb7 17.Bc2 Qe6 18.Nd2 f5 19.Nf3

The interesting move 19.Ne4 is harmless, according to Konstantinopolsky: 19…

fxe4 20.dxe4 Nb6 (20…Nf6? is bad in view of 21.Bb3, of course) 21.e5 Bc5
22.Bxh7+ Kf7, but it seems to me that after 23.Qh5+ Ke7 24.Bg5+ (or 24.Bf4!?)
Black is not really comfortable – White at any rate has three pawns for his piece.

19…h6

Less good is 19…Be7?! 20.Bg5, with advantage for White.

20.Bxh6

White has to force matters; other moves would have been met by 20…Be7
21.Rd4 Bf6.

20…gxh6 21.Qd2 f4!

21…Rf6?! 22.Re1 Qd7 23.Ne5 Qg7 24.d4 gives White good chances
(Konstantinopolsky).

22.Re1 Qf6 23.Rg4+ Kh8 24.d4 Rg8 25.Qd3 Rg7

26.Rxg7

In the endgame after 26.Nh4 fxg3 27.hxg3 Nf4 28.Rxf4 (28.Qe4? Nh3+) 28…
Bxf4 29.Ng6+ Rxg6 30.Qxg6 Qxg6 31.Bxg6 the bishops look like calling the
shots. 26.Ne5 fxg3 27.hxg3 Rf8 28.f4 Bxe5 29.dxe5 Qe7 is not convincing
either, although White still keeps two pawns for his piece.

26…Qxg7 27.Ne5

27.Re6 is worth considering, especially in light of what follows. This seems to

fail to 27…fxg3 28.hxg3 Nf4 (Konstantinopolsky), but White plays the stronger
28.Rxd6, and if 28…Nf4, then 29.Qh7+!

27…Bxe5!

Konstantinopolsky-Keglevic, correspondence game 1979, saw 27…Àe7?, and

after 28.Qf3 Rf8 29.Àd7 Rf7 30.Bb3 Rf5 31.Bc2 Rd5 32.Àc5 Bxc5 33.dxc5
fxg3 34.hxg3 Rxc5 35.Qe3 Rg5 a draw was agreed in view of 36.Qxe7 Rxg3+,
and Black has perpetual check. Despite his extensive analyses of this game,
Konstantinopolsky fails to mention the text. This is strange, as it seems to refute
the entire white set-up!

28.Rxe5 Rf8 29.Re6 fxg3 30.Rg6?

The forced refutation of this move is not hard to find, certainly not in a
correspondence game. White’s only chance was 30.Qxg3, but he probably didn’t
feel like having his queen swapped.

30…gxf2+! 31.Kf1 Qxg6 32.Qxg6 Ne3+ 33.Ke2 f1Q+ 34.Kxe3 Qe1+ 35.Kd3
Rf3

Mate!

RL 17.4
 Kuporosov

Lukacs

Budapest 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.Bxd5 cxd5 13.d4 Bd6 14.Re3

In the Kevitz Variation White gives up his Spanish bishop at an early stage to be
able to involve his king’s rook in the defence more quickly.

14…Qh4 15.h3 g5!?

With 15…Qf4 players like Spassky, Tal and Nunn easily maintained the balance.

16.Qf3 Be6

16…g4? won’t work in view of 17.Qxd5.

17.Qf6 Rfe8

Another possibility is 17…Qh5 18.Nd2 g4, but then White plays 19.Rxe6 fxe6
20.Qxe6+ Qf7 21.Qxd6 Qxf2+ 22.Kh2 Rae8 23.Qg3, with a better position for
White.

18.Nd2

After 18.Na3 Qh5 19.Bd2 Be7 Black also keeps compensation for the pawn:
20.Qf3 Qg6 21.Rae1 g4!?, Hübner-Nunn, Haifa 1989, or 20.Qe5 Rad8 21.f4
Qg6, Wolff-Hellers, New York 1990.

18…Qf4!
Otherwise White plays 19.Nf3.

19.Qxf4 Bxf4 20.Re1

20…Bxh3!

With this move Black forces an equal position.

21.Rxe8+

Or 21.Ne4 dxe4 22.gxh3 Bxc1 23.Raxc1 f5, or 21.Nf3 Rxe1+ 22.Nxe1 Bxc1
23.Rxc1 Bf5, in both cases with an equal endgame.

21…Rxe8 22.Nf3

Less good is 22.gxh3?! Re1+ 23.Nf1 Rxc1 24.Rxc1 Bxc1, and the endgame
favours Black.

22…Bxc1

The endgame after 22…Bg4 23.Bxf4 gxf4 24.Ne5 Bf5 25.a4! is no bed of roses
for Black.

23.Rxc1 Bg4

Or 23…Bf5 24.Nxg5 Re2 25.b4 Rxa2 26.Rf1 f6, draw, as in the correspondence
game Pogorelsky-Sorokin, 1992/94.

24.Nxg5 f6 25.Nh3 Bxh3 26.gxh3 Re2 27.b4

Now the endgame is equal. Weaker is 27.Rb1?!, when the white rook is inactive,
the black rook stays on the second rank and the black king comes nearer: g8-f7-
g6-f5.

27…Rxa2 28.Kg2

Draw.

RL 17.4
 Kaminski

Panczyk

Lubniewice 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.Bxd5 cxd5 13.d4 Bd6 14.Re3 Qh4
15.h3 f5?!

Stronger is 15…g5, as in Kuporosov-Lukacs, Budapest 1990.

16.Qf3 Bb7 17.Nd2 g5 18.Qe2 g4

After 18…f4 White plays 19.Nf3 Qh5 20.Nxg5! Qg6 (20…Qxg5 21.Rg3 costs
the queen!) 21.Re6 Qxg5 22.Rxd6 Rae8 23.Re6 Kf7 24.Re5!, with a large
advantage for White, Hübner-Nunn, Skelleftea 1989.

19.Re6 Rad8

19…Bc7 20.Nf1 gxh3 21.Rh6 h2+ 22.Kh1 also favours White.

20.g3!
20…Qxh3?

Black fails to see through White’s trick! Relatively better was 20…Qh5 21.hxg4
fxg4 22.Nf1 Rfe8 23.Rxe8+ Rxe8 24.Ne3 Bc8 25.a4, with advantage for White.

21.Ne4! f4

A nice idea. After 21…fxe4 22.Rh6 Rxf2 23.Qxf2 Qxg3+ 24.Qxg3 Bxg3 25.Be3
White has a winning position, just as after 21…dxe4 22.Rh6 e3 23.Rxh3 exf2+
24.Qxf2 gxh3 25.Kh2 Rde8 26.Bf4 Bxf4 27.gxf4. Thus Kaminski.

22.Nxd6 fxg3 23.fxg3 Rxd6 24.Bf4!

But not 24.Rxd6? Qxg3+, and Black wins back his rook!

24…Rxf4

Or 24…Rxe6 25.Qxe6+ Rf7 26.Re1, and all is decided.

25.Re8+!

Black resigned: 25…Rf8 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8 27.Rf1+ or 25…Kg7 26.Qe7+ Rf7

27.Qxd6.

RL 17.5

De Firmian

Adams

New York 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re2

Another way to go about it as White. One of the ideas behind the text is that with
the black queen on h3 White can play Qf1 at once if he likes. On the other hand,
in some variations the e2 rook is slightly awkwardly placed.

13…Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Nd2

After 15.Qf1 Qh5 16.f3 Bh3 17.Qf2 f5 18.Nd2 Rae8 Black has counterplay.

15…Bf5 16.a4 Rae8

Another possibility is 16…Bd3 17.Re1, and only then 17…Rae8, e.g. 18.Nf3
Rxe1+ 19.Qxe1 h6 20.axb5 axb5 21.Ne5 Re8 22.Qd1 Bxe5 23.dxe5 Qf5
24.Bxd5 cxd5 25.g4 Qg6 26.Bf4 Qe4 27.h3 h5 28.Bg3 Bc2 29.Qd4 ½-½,
Anand-Khalifman, Reggio Emilia 1991/92.

17.Rxe8 Rxe8 18.Nf1

Very bad was 18.axb5? Nf4! 19.gxf4 Bxf4 20.Nf3 Qg4+ 21.Kf1 Bd3+, and
White resigned, Kotronias-Adams, Nikiti/Afytos 1992.

18…h5 19.axb5 axb5

20.Ra6?!

Too optimistic! Better was 20.Ne3 Nxe3 21.Bxe3 Bxg3 22.fxg3 Rxe3 23.Qf1,
with an equal position, or 20.Bxd5 cxd5 21.Ne3 Bg6 (21…Be4!? or 21…h4!?
may be stronger) 22.Qf1 Qd7 23.Ra5, and White has the initiative, according to
Adams.

20…Nc7 21.Ra7

21.Rxc6 in impossible in view of 21…Be4, of course.

21…h4 22.Ne3?!

22.Qh5 is decisively met by 22…Qxf1+!, and 22.Qf3 Re1 23.Qg2 Rxc1 also
loses. According to Ftacnik, 22.Bf4 was White’s only chance.

22…hxg3 23.fxg3 Bxg3! 24.hxg3 Rxe3

Or 24…Qxg3+ 25.Ng2 Bh3 26.Qf1 Re1, winning.

25.Bxe3 Qxg3+ 26.Kf1 Bh3+ 27.Ke2 Bg4+ 28.Kd2 Bxd1 29.Bxd1 Nd5
30.Ra8+ Kh7 31.Re8 f5 32.Ke2 Qh2+ 33.Kd3 Qxb2

White resigned.

RL 17.6

Skuja

Svagers
Correspondence game 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Bxd5 cxd5 16.Qf3 Bf5 17.Qxd5

This has always been regarded as quite suspect. A stronger move is supposed to
be 17.Nd2 Rae8 18.Re3 Re6 19.Qxd5 Bd3 20.Rxe6 fxe6 21.Qxd6 Rxf2 22.Kxf2
Qxh2+ 23.Kf3 Qe2+ 24.Kf4 h6! 25.Qd8+ Kh7 26.Qe7 Kh8 27.Qd8+ Kh7
28.Qe7, and move repetition, according to an analysis by Trajkovic.

17…Rae8 18.Bd2

Bad is 18.Re3? Qh5! 19.Nd2 (19.Qxd6 Bh3, and mate) 19…Qd1+ 20.Kg2 Rxe3
21.fxe3 Qe2+, with winning play, e.g. 22.Kg1 Qxe3+ 23.Kg2 Qe2+ 24.Kg1 Bh3
25.Qf3 Qe1+ 26.Nf1 Re8 27.Qf2 Qd1.

18…Bf4!?

18…Bd3 19.Na3 Bxa3 20.bxa3 Bc4 21.Qf3 yields nothing, Chandler-Nikolic,

Leningrad 1987, while 18…Re6 19.Na3 isn’t clear.

19.Rxe8

19.Qg2? Rxe1+ 20.Bxe1 Bc1! wins for Black, Sakhalkur-Barczay,

correspondence game 1959/60.

19…Rxe8 20.Qc6

After 20.Qg2? Qh5! 21.gxf4 Bh3 the game is finished.

20…Bd7 21.Qg2 Qh5 22.f3 Bc6 23.g4

Other moves are no good: 23.Bxf4? Bxf3, or 23.gxf4? Re6!, or 23.Kf2 Bxf3!,
and Black wins in all cases.

23…Qh4
‘And Black wins’, according to the older theory books.
24.Qf2!

This simple move parries all Black’s threats!

24…Bxh2+

Draw by perpetual check; there’s nothing more in it for Black.

25.Qxh2 Re1+ 26.Bxe1 Qxe1+ 27.Kg2 Qe2+ 28.Kg1

And not 28.Kg3? Qxf3+ 29.Kh4 f6, and White loses after all.

Draw.

RL 17.6

Leko

Adams

Dortmund 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Re4 Bb7?!

Other, probably better moves are 15…Qd7 and 15…g5. For the latter move, see
Ernst-Wegner, Gausdal 1992.
16.Rh4 Qe6

16…Qd7? is refuted by 17.Bxd5 cxd5 18.Qh5 h6 19.Bxh6, and White wins at

once.

17.Nd2 f5

A logical enough move in itself, but it does weaken the b3-g8 diagonal. 17…
Rfe8 is met by 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Nc5 Bxc5 20.dxc5, with advantage for White,
Nunn-Hebden, London 1990.

18.Qh5! h6 19.Nf3 Be7 20.Rh3 c5

After 20…Rae8 White plays 21.Bf4, followed by 22.Re1, with advantage.

21.dxc5 Bxc5 22.Bf4

The white rook looks slightly out of place on h3, but White is building up a
powerful initiative.

22…Rae8 23.Rd1!

White must certainly not play 23.Re1? in view of 23…Qxe1+ 24.Nxe1 Rxe1+
25.Kg2 Kh7, and he is lost, e.g. 26.Bxd5 Bxd5+ 27.f3 Rg1 mate.

23…Re7

After 23…a5? White wins with 24.Bxh6! gxh6 25.Rxd5! Bxd5 26.Bxd5 Qxd5
27.Qg6+, and mate.
24.Bg5! Rd7

Taking the bishop loses at once: 24…hxg5? 25.Qh7+ Kf7 26.Nxg5+. After 24…
Ref7, 25.Bxh6! gxh6 26.Ng5! wins: 26…Qd6 27.Nxf7 Rxf7 28.Qf3 Rd7
29.Rh5, followed by 30.Rf5 – note the murderous strength of the b3 bishop!

After 24…Ree8 the move 25.Bxh6 is also decisive.

25.Re1! Qb6

25…Qf7 is met by 26.Ne5 Qxh5 27.Rxh5 Re8 28.Bd2 Rde7 29.Nd3! Rxe1+
30.Bxe1 g6 31.Rxh6 Kg7 32.Bd2, and White has a winning position: two pawns
up and his strong rook on h6 is untouchable.

26.Re2 Kh7 27.Rh4! a5?!

This loses quickly, but after 27…Rd6 28.Bc2 Black should also be lost.

28.Bxh6! Qxh6

Or 28…gxh6 29.Re6! Bxf2+ (29…Qxe6 30.Ng5+ costs the queen) 30.Kf1 Ne3+
31.Ke2, and it’s over, too.

29.Qg5!

The point of 27.Rh4! – with the rook on h3 the text would have been impossible!

29…a4 30.Re6!

Black resigned.

RL 17.6

Ernst
 Wegner

Gausdal 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Re4 g5!? 16.Qf3

16.Bxg5? won’t wash, of course, in view of 16…Qf5, and White loses a piece.

16…Bf5 17.Bxd5

An interesting idea is 17.Bc2!? Bxe4 (an amusing riposte is 17…Bf4!?. After

18.Bxf4 gxf4 19.Nd2 the position is very complicated) 18.Bxe4 Qe6 19.Bxg5 f5
20.Bd3 f4, with difficult play. White certainly has compensation for the
exchange.

17…cxd5 18.Re3 Rad8 19.Nd2 Rfe8 20.a4

In Kazoks-Frederiks, correspondence game 1999, White played 20.b3. Play

continued 20…Bg4 21.Qf6 h6 22.a4 (22.Nf1!? could have prevented the draw)
22…Rxe3! 23.Qxd8+ Kh7 24.fxe3 Bxg3 25.hxg3 Qxg3+ 26.Kh1 Qh3+, with a
draw by perpetual check.

20…b4 21.c4 dxc4 22.Nxc4

22…Bd3! 23.Nd2!

Weaker is 23.Rxe8+?! Rxe8 24.Ne3 Bf4! 25.Qg2 Qh5 26.gxf4 Qd1+! 27.Qf1!
Qxf1+ 28.Nxf1 Re1 29.fxg5 b3, with advantage for Black, although White
managed to draw; Timman-Short, Tilburg 1991.

23…Rxe3

White was threatening 24.Rxe8+ Re8 25.Qxd3 Re1+ 26.Nf1.

24.fxe3 f5

24…g4!? may well have been a better move.

25.b3 h5?

This looks threatening, but White’s next move frees him completely. Now Black
should certainly have tried 25…g4.

26.e4! fxe4 27.Nxe4 Bxe4 28.Qxe4 Bxg3 29.Ra2!

Not 29.hxg3 Qxg3+, of course, with perpetual check. The text is the refutation of
the black set-up. His attack fizzles out and the black position is in tatters.

29…Rd6

Or 29…Rf8 30.Qg6+ Kh8 31.Qh6+ Kg8 32.Qxg5+ Kh8 33.Qh6+ Kg8 34.Rg2,
and it’s finished.

30.Re2

Black resigned.

RL 17.8
 Galow

Frederiks

Correspondence game 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Be3

Now we find ourselves in the starting-position of the main line of the Marshall
Attack.

15…Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 f5

In English chess literature, this goes by the name of the Pawn Push Variation. It
requires the utmost accuracy from White to neutralize the black attack.

18.Qf1 Qh5 19.f4 g5 20.Qg2

20.fxg5 is met strongly by 20…Rxe3!, although Black has no more than a draw:
21.Rxe3 f4 22.Rf3! Bxf3 23.Qxf3 Qxf3 24.Nxf3 fxg3 25.Kg2 gxh2 26.Nxh2 (or
26.Rh1 Rf5 27.Nxh2 Rxg5+ 28.Kf3 Rh5 29.Kg2, with an equal position and
possibly move repetition) 26…Bxh2 27.Kxh2 Rf2+ 28.Kg3 ½-½, Pötzsch-
Ulbricht, correspondence game 1959.

20…gxf4 21.Bxd5+

The theory gives 21.Bxf4 Bxf4 22.gxf4 Kh8 23.Bxd5 cxd5 24.Qxd5 Be2 25.Nf1
½-½, Dely-Pogats, Hungary 1961. The justification for the draw is 25…Bf3
26.Ng3 Qg4 27.Rxe8 Bxd5 28.Rxf8+ Kg7 29.Rxf5 Qf3 30.Rxd5, ‘and White
has sufficient compensation for the queen’.
21…cxd5 22.Qxd5+ Kg7

22…Kh8? won’t work in view of 23.Qxd6 fxe3 24.Rxe3!, and White is simply
two pawns up.

23.Bxf4

Now 23.Qxd6? is bad after 23…fxe3. 23.gxf4? is no good either in view of 23…
Rf6, with winning threats.

23…Bxf4 24.gxf4 Kh8!

Two moves later it goes to h8 anyway, vacating the g-file for the rook.

25.Rxe8!

White will have to be very careful. Bad is 25.Re5 Rg8 26.Kh1? (still correct is
26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.Qc6, as in the game) 26…Rd8! 27.Qb7 Rd7! 28.Qc6 (28.Qxd7
Bf3+, and mate) 28…Rd6!, and White resigned, Eubanks-Hurt, correspondence
game 1990. There follows 29.Qb7 Bd1! 30.Re3 Rdg6 31.h3 Re6! or 29.Qg2 Bh3
30.Qf2 Bg2+ 31.Qxg2 Rxg2 32.Kxg2 Rg6+.

25…Rxe8 26.Qc6 Re2

After 26…Rg8 White has perpetual check with 27.Qf6+.

27.Qa8+ Kg7 28.Qb7+ Kf8

Here a draw was agreed. A possible continuation was 29.Nf1 Bf3 30.Qc8+ Kg7
31.Qd7+ Kh6 32.Qd6+ Qg6+ 33.Qxg6+ Kxg6, and Black will have sufficient
play thanks to his active rook, but there doesn’t seem to be any advantage in it
for him.

RL 17.11

Cooper

Brookes

Correspondence game 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 Re6 18.a4 f5

More accurate is 18…bxa4!.

19.Qf1 Qh5 20.f4?! bxa4 21.Rxa4 Rfe8

This is a well-known position from the Marshall Attack. Other moves are 21…
g5 and 21…Rb8.

22.Rxa6

The alternative is 22.Qf2.

22…Rxe3 23.Rxe3 Rxe3 24.Rxc6 Qe8

The tempting 24…Re2? loses: 25.h3! Bxh3 26.Bxd5+ Kf8 27.Bf3.

25.Bxd5+ Kf8
26.Ne4

Also possible is 26.Rxd6!?, as after 26…Re1 27.Be6 Rxf1+ 28.Nxf1 Qb8

29.Rd5 it is unlikely that Black will be able to win the endgame. In Elburg-
Espindola, correspondence game 1997, for example, there followed 29…Qxb2
30.Bxf5 Bf3 31.Rd8+ Ke7 32.Rd7+ Ke8 33.Bh3 Bg2 34.Bxg2, draw.

26…fxe4

Bad is 26…Rxe4? 27.Bxe4 fxe4 28.Rxd6 e3 29.Qb1 Qa8 30.d5 e2 31.Kg2 Ke7
32.Rc6 Kd7 33.h3, and White won, Dragunov-Konstantinopolsky,
correspondence game 1965.

27.Rxd6 Rd3 28.Bb3

After 28.Ra6? Black has 28…Qb5!.

28…e3! 29.Qxd3 e2 30.Re6!

The saving move!

30…Qxe6!

The position after 30…Bxe6 31.Qxe2 Bxb3 32.Qxe8+ Kxe8 33.Kf2 is certainly
not winnable for Black, and 30…e1Q+ 31.Rxe1 Qxe1+ 32.Qf1 doesn’t yield
anything either.

31.Bxe6 e1Q+ 32.Kg2 Qxe6 33.d5 Bh3+ 34.Kf3 Bg4+ 35.Kg2 Bh3+

Neither player can play for a win. This game once more shows how far many
variations of the Marshall Attack have been analysed these days. It is remarkable
that despite the variation being super-sharp, the complications usually peter out
in peaceful move repetition!

Draw.

RL 17.11
 Ivanez

Novotny

Correspondence game 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 Re6 18.a4 f5?! 19.Qf1 Qh5 20.f4?! bxa4!
21.Rxa4 Rfe8 22.Qf2 g5!

The entire black army has its guns trained on the white king. With the text the
white king position is shattered.

23.fxg5 f4!

The consequence of the previous move.

24.gxf4

After 24.Bxd5 cxd5 25.gxf4 it might go like this: 25…Bh3 26.Rxa6 Qg4+
27.Qg3 Rxe3 28.Rxe3 Qd1+! 29.Qe1 Qg4+! draw, Czar-Cardelli,
correspondence game 1993. White has to play 30.Qg3, when Black goes 30…
Qd1+ again.

24…Bh3! 25.Rxa6 Bxf4!

Now 25…Qg4+? is bad: 26.Qg3 Rxe3 27.Rxe3 Rxe3 (27…Qd1+ won’t work
now!) 28.Qxg4 Bxg4 29.Rxc6, and White wins back his piece.
26.Bxd5

The queen sacrifice 26.Qxf4!? is interesting, but probably no stronger than the
text: 26…Nxf4 27.Bxf4 Qg4+ 28.Bg3 Qxg5 29.Ne4 Qf5 30.Be5 Kf8 31.Bxe6
Rxe6 32.Raa1 Rg6+ 33.Bg3 Kg8 34.Nf2 Rxg3+!? 35.hxg3 Qf3 36.Nxh3 Qxg3+
37.Kf1 Qxh3+ 38.Ke2 Qg2+ 39.Kd3 Qxb2 draw, Roelens-Trapeaux,
correspondence game 1996. None of this is really forced, of course, but it’s nice
to play!

26…Qxg5+ 27.Qg3 cxd5 28.Rxe6 Rxe6 29.Bxf4 Rxe1+ 30.Kf2 Qxg3+

31.Kxg3 Be6 32.b3

Here a draw was agreed. And it’s true that with correct play, the endgame will
probably be drawn.

RL 17.11

Ernst

Sammalvuo

Österskärs 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 Re6 18.a4 f5?! 19.Qf1 Qh5 20.f4 bxa4!
21.Bxd5 cxd5 22.Qg2
A turn you always have to be aware of in the Marshall is the double attack
22.Rxa4? Qe8!.

22…Rfe8

The exchange sacrifice 22…Re4 has also been tried.

23.Qxd5 Kh8 24.Bf2 Rxe1+

24…Be2 has been thoroughly analysed as well, and several games have been
played with it. But it would go beyond the scope of this book to delve into it
more deeply.

25.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 26.Bxe1 Qe8 27.Bf2 h6!

A hidey-hole for the king is worth more than the bishop on d6!
28.Qxd6

28.Kg2 is met by 28…Qe2 29.Nc4 Bxf4!, and now 30.gxf4? won’t work in view
of 30…Bh3+!, and mate. 28.Nc4?! Qe2 29.Ne3 Qxb2 isn’t much good either;
Black’s passed a-pawn will advance. A nice idea is 28.h3!?, with the point that
after 28…Bxh3 29.Nc4 Qe2? 30.Nxd6 Black does not have mate on f1; but 29…
Bc7 30.Ne3 Qb8! 31.Qa2 Qb5 yielded Black sufficient counterplay in Lanka-
Ozolins, Riga 1983.

28…Qe2 29.Qb8+?

This is a very bad spot for the queen. Better is 29.Nf1 Qd1 (or 29…Bh3 30.Ne3
Qd3 31.Ng2 Qb1+ 32.Ne1 Qxb2 33.Qb4 a3 34.g4! Qe2 35.Qf8+ Kh7 36.Qxf5+,
and White has perpetual check) 30.Qxa6 Be2 31.Qc8+ Kh7 32.Qxf5+ Kh8
33.Qh3 draw, Matsukevich-Filipchenko, cr 1983. Black has the drawing
mechanism Be2-g4-f3.

29…Kh7 30.Nf1 Bh3 31.Ne3 Qd3 32.Ng2 Qb1+!

The refutation of White’s 29th move! For years, the theory books had given
32…Qe4? 33.Ne1 Qe2 34.Ng2 draw, Matsukevich-Shevchenko, correspondence
game 1983. Never put all your trust in a theory book!

33.Ne1

After 33.Be1 Qe4 White is lost, too.

33…a3!

An important coincidence: Black exploits the pin on pawn b2.

White resigned.

RL 18.1
 Hergert

Leisebein

Correspondence game 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.a4

This variation is aptly named the ‘Anti-Marshall’.

8…Rb8

8…Bb7 is more common, but Black wants to make another attempt to get the
gambit onto the board.

9.axb5 axb5 10.c3 d5!?

The general consensus is that, with White controlling the a-file, the Marshall
Attack is no longer playable.

11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Rxe5 Nf6

And it’s true that the standard move in the Marshall, 13…c6, is less dangerous
now: 14.d4 Bd6 15.Re1 Qh4 16.g3 Qh3 17.Be3 h5 18.Qf3 h4 19.Bxd5 cxd5
20.Nd2 hxg3 21.hxg3 Rb6 (an extra possibility not available to Black in the
normal Marshall, but it doesn’t amount to much) 22.Ra7 Bb8 23.Ra5 Rg6
24.Qg2 Qd7 25.Nb3 Qc6 26.Nc5, and Black failed to prove that he had
compensation for the sacrificed pawn in Copie-Paternoste, correspondence game
1985/87.

14.d4 Bd6 15.Re2

After 15.Re1 the differences with the normal Marshall become apparent: 15…
Ng4 16.h3 Qh4 17.Qf3 Nxf2! 18.Bd2 (18.Qxf2? is bad in view of 18…Bh2+,
while 18.Re2 can be met by 18…Ng4, as the normal refutation in the Marshall
19.g3 is impossible now) 18…Bb7! 19.Qxf2 Bh2+ 20.Kf1 Bg3 21.Qg1 Rbe8
22.Re3 Re6! 23.d5 Rf6+ 24.Rf3 Rxf3+ 25.gxf3 Re8 26.Na3 Bc8 27.Be3 Bf5!
28.Nc2 Bd3+, and a draw in view of the move repetition 29.Kg2 Bf5 30.Kf1
Bd3+, Preussner-Leisebein, cr 1985.

15…Nh5!?

Black can also try 15…Bb7 or 15…Rb6!?.

16.Be3

16.Qd3 is probably stronger: 16…Qh4 (16…Qf6!? may be an option) 17.g3 Qh3

18.Bd5 Bf5 19.Be4, as in a second correspondence game Hergert-Leisebein,
1998. Black’s compensation is quite doubtful!

16…Bg4! 17.f3 Qh4! 18.g3 Nxg3! 19.Rg2

Bad is 19.hxg3? Qxg3+ 20.Rg2 Bxf3, and Black wins.

19…Ne4!

This is an improvement on 19…Bh3?! 20.Bf2! Bxg2 21.Kxg2 Nf5 22.Bxh4

Ne3+ 23.Kg1 Nxd1 24.Bxd1, with advantage for White, Dünhaupt-Lehikoinen,
correspondence game 1983/84.

20.fxg4 Bxh2+ 21.Kf1

After 21.Rxh2 Black should be able to hold his opponent to a draw: 21…Qg3+
22.Kh1 Qxe3 23.Qg1 (23.Nd2 Nf2+ 24.Rxf2 Qxf2 25.Qe1 Qf4 26.Qe2 Rbe8
27.Qg2 Qh6+ 28.Kg1 Qe3+ 29.Qf2 Qg5 also ends in a draw) 23…Qf3+ 24.Qg2
Qe3 25.Qc2 Qe1+, Leisebein.

21…Ng3+ 22.Ke1 Ne4+ 23.Ke2?

White is demanding too much. 23.Kf1 Ng3+ would lead to move repetition, but
maybe Black can play 23…Rbe8 here as well.

23…Rbe8 24.Kd3

24.Nd2 is met strongly by 24…Qh3, while 24.Qf1 Ng3+ 25.Rxg3 Qxg3 also
favours Black.

24…Nc5+! 25.Kd2

Or 25.dxc5 Rd8+ 26.Bd4 Qh3+ 27.Kc2 Qxg2+ 28.Qd2 (28.Nd2 is met by 28…
Bf4, followed by 29…Rfe8) 28…Qe4+ 29.Qd3 Qxg4, with winning play,
according to Leisebein.

25…Nxb3+ 26.Qxb3 Rxe3!

White resigned. 27.Kxe3 runs into the deadly 27…Re8+.

RL 18.4
 Gipslis

Pogats

Pecs 1964

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.a4

To prevent Black from playing the Marshall Attack. This gives rise to totally
different types of position. The best recommendation for 8.a4 is the fact that it is
Garry Kasparov’s regular choice when faced with opponents trying to foist the
Marshall on him; and so far he has always beaten them with it!

8…Bb7 9.d3 d6 10.Nc3 Na5 11.Ba2 b4 12.Ne2

12…b3?!

An interesting idea, but premature as yet.

There is an enormous amount of theory on 12…c5. I will give you one game in
which White wins with approximately the same set-up as in the present game:
13.Bd2 Bc6 14.Ng3 Qd7 15.Nf5 Bd8 16.Ng5 Bxa4 17.Re3 d5 18.Nxh7!, and
Black resigned, Krzyszton-Brglez, cr 1978. White wins after both 18…Kxh7
19.Bxd5 Bc6 20.Rh3+ Kg8 21.Rg3 Ne8 22.Rxg7+! Nxg7 23.Qg4 Bf6 24.Bh6,
and 18…Nxh7 19.Bxd5 Bc6 20.Rg3 g6 21.Qh5 Bxd5 22.Qh6 Bf6 23.Rh3 Rfc8
24.Qxh7+ Kf8 25.Qh8+, and mate.

13.cxb3 c5 14.b4!

The a2 bishop must stay in the game.

14…cxb4 15.Ng3 Rb8 16.Bd2 Nc6 17.Rc1 d5?!

This is asking too much. But it is hard to find a good move for Black to play.

18.Nf5!

Far stronger than 18.exd5?! Nxd5 19.Nxe5 Nxe5 20.Rxe5 Bf6, and Black wins
back the pawn.

18…dxe4 19.dxe4 Rc8 20.Qb3!

A many-sided move; White is threatening 21.Rc6, followed by 22.Ne7+ and

23.Bxb4; square d1 is vacated for the rook and White prepares the decisive
switch to the kingside.

20…a5 21.Rcd1 Qc7 22.Ng5 Bc5

After 22…Bd8 White has a choice between 23.Qg3 Nh5 24.Qh3 Bxg5 25.Bxg5
g6 26.Rd7 and 23.Nxf7! Rxf7 24.Nd6!.

23.Qg3 Nh5 24.Qh4 Nf6 25.Nxh7!

Black resigned. 25…Nxh7 26.Qg4 g6 27.Qxg6+, and mate will follow.

RL 19.12

Teichmann

Schlechter

Karlsbad 1911

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0
9.d3

The main line of the Ruy Lopez starts with 9.h3 to prepare d2-d4, but the slow
build-up as in this game can be pretty venomous as well.

9…Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.Nbd2

The knight wants to go and occupy square d5 or f5 via f1 and e3.

11…Qc7

Black has several other possibilities here, e.g. 11…Nd7 12.Nf1 Nb6 13.Ne3 Bf6,
with roughly equal play.

12.Nf1 Nc6 13.Ne3 Bb7?!

Black allows Nf5, which is pretty risky! 13…Be6 has been recommended as
better, but then 14.Ng5 is annoying, e.g. 14…d5 15.exd5 Bxd5 16.d4!, German-
Miller, Buenos Aires 1994. An alternative, though, is 13…Re8, followed by …
Bf8.
14.Nf5 Rfe8 15.Bg5 Nd7?!

Black takes a piece away from his beleaguered kingside and relinquishes control
of square d5. According to Vidmar, 15…Bd8 was better, but this is not a pretty
move either. Tartakower has suggested 15…h6, but this is also suspect, as it
weakens the king position. A third recommendation is 15…Rad8, possibly
intending to play d6-d5.

16.Bb3!
‘Preventing …f6 and launching a bombardment on the black king position’,
according to Vidmar in the tournament book.

16…Nf8 17.Bd5!

Threatening 18.Bxc6 Bxc6 19.Nxe7+, winning the exchange.

17…Ng6?

This is harshly refuted. The manoeuvre Nf6-d7-f8-g6 has cost a lot of time! 17…
Bd8 18.a4! Ne6 19.axb5 exposes Black’s problems. After 19…axb5 20.Rxa8
Bxa8 21.Bxd8 White occupies the a-file with 22.Qb3 and 23.Ra1, and after 19…
Nxg5 20.Nxg5 Bxg5 21.Qh5 Black is facing a plethora of threats.

According to Tartakower, 17…Bxg5 18.Nxg5 Nd8 was the only defence.

18.Bxe7 Ngxe7

18…Ncxe7 19.Bxb7 Qxb7 20.Nxd6 won’t wash.

19.Bxf7+! Kxf7 20.Ng5+ Kg8

Fleeing forward won’t work here: 20…Kf6 21.Nxh7+ or 20…Kg6 21.Qg4.

21.Qh5 Nxf5 22.Qxh7+ Kf8 23.Qxf5+

23.exf5, followed by 24.f6, is more direct.

23…Kg8 24.Qg6

Threatening the devastating 25.Re3. Slightly more laborious is 24.Re3 g6!?

25.Qxg6+ Qg7 26.Qxd6.

24…Qd7 25.Re3

Black resigned.
RL 20.11

Van der Wiel

Timman

Tilburg 1983

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0
9.d4

The most common move here is 9.h3. With the text White occupies the centre at
once, but the pin that now follows guarantees Black active counterplay. That
doesn’t mean it’s a bad move, though.

9…Bg4 10.Be3

Another possibility here is 10.d5, when Black creates counterplay with 10…Na5
11.Bc2 c6 12.dxc6 Qc7 13.Nbd2 Qxc6.

10…exd4 11.cxd4 d5

11…Na5 12.Bc2 c5 also yields Black active play.

12.e5 Ne4 13.h3

An example with 13.Nbd2 is the game Arnason-Torre, Sochi 1980: 13…Nxd2

14.Qxd2 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Bb4 16.Qc2 Na5! (winning the exchange is quite
dubious; 16…Bxe1?! 17.Qxc6 Bb4 18.Bxd5, with advantage for White) 17.Bd2
Bxd2 18.Qxd2 Nxb3 19.axb3 Qd7, with good play for Black.
13…Bh5 14.g4

A calmer idea is 14.Nc3, e.g. 14…Nxc3 15.bxc3 Qd7 16.Bc2 f5!? 17.exf6 Bxf6
18.Qd3 Bg6 19.Qd2 Be4 20.Bxe4 dxe4 21.Nh2 Na5, with roughly equal
chances, Panchenko-I.Sokolov, Palma the Mallorca 1989.

14…Bg6 15.Nh2 Bb4 16.f3

Interesting: White sacrifices the exchange. In the game Yudasin-Tseshkovsky,

Soviet championship 1981, White played 16.Re2 f5 17.f3 Ng3 18.Rg2 f4, with
an unclear position.

16…Bxe1 17.Qxe1 Ng5 18.Nc3 Ne6

The position is hard to assess: does White have sufficient compensation for the
exchange? Timman called the text ‘undoubtedly the best move’. In the game
Panchenko-Torre, Sochi 1980, White ended up better after 18…Nb4 19.Qd2
Nxh3+ 20.Kg2 c5 21.Kxh3 c4 22.a3. The Encyclopaedia also suggests 18…
Na5!?.

19.Bxd5

Panchenko has indicated 19.Rd1 Nb4 20.Qe2 a5 21.Qxb5, with advantage for
White, here. Timman, however, observes that 19…Na5! 20.Bxd5 c6 is far
stronger, and now it is doubtful whether White has sufficient compensation for
the exchange. He adds: ‘The problem with the white position is always that the
h2 knight is so far away. This theme crops up again later in this game.’

19…Ncxd4 20.Rd1

20.Bxd4?! is met by 20…c6, of course, and White has no compensation for the
exchange.

20…c5! 21.f4?

At this crucial junction, White miscalculates, although it was hard to foresee

what was going to happen. According to Timman, White should have gone
21.Bxa8 Qxa8 before playing 22.f4. He then indicates 22…Be4! as Black’s best
bet, with the continuation 23.Nxe4 (after 23.Bxd4?! Black plays 23…Bh1!)
23…Qxe4 24.Bxd4 Qxe1+ 25.Rxe1 Nxd4 26.Kf2, with a drawn endgame.
21…b4 22.Bxa8 bxc3!

Now Black has this extra possibility. The rest needed to be calculated very
accurately.

23.Bg2?!

Now White loses by force. Relatively better was 23.bxc3 Qxa8 24.cxd4,
although Black is still better after 24…cxd4: 25.f5 (or 25.Bd2 Bc2 26.Rc1 d3,
with the threat of 27…Nd4) 25…dxe3 26.Qxe3 Qc6!, with the threat of 27…
Qc2. Thus Timman.

23…cxb2 24.f5 Nxf5!

This is the point of 22…bxc3!. Black sacrifices his queen, because White will
not be able to prevent the b2 pawn from queening.

25.Rxd8 Rxd8 26.Bg5

After 26.Qb1 Black had prepared 26…Rd1+! 27.Qxd1 Nxe3.

26…Nxg5 27.Qb1 Rb8

And White resigned.

RL 21.4

Ehlvest

Nikolic
Reykjavik 1988

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6
9.h3 a5

Versatility is the Ruy Lopez’s strongest suit. In the position after 9.h3 Black has
a whole range of moves, all of which have stood the test of time. The text is one
of the less common continuations.

10.d3

A good alternative is 10.d4 a4 11.Bc2.

10…a4 11.Bc2 Bd7 12.Nbd2 Qb8?!

Risky, this queen move. White’s chances are on the kingside, so it doesn’t make
sense for Black to take his queen over to the other side. 12…Re8 13.Nf1 h6
14.Ng3 Bf8 is a safer option.

13.d4

So now.

13…Qb7 14.Nf1 exd4?!

And here Black should certainly have given priority to safeguarding his kingside
with 14…Rfe8, followed by 15…Bf8.

15.cxd4 Nb4 16.Bb1 Rad8

The logical move here was 16…d5 (intending to play 17.e5 Ne4), but White has
a strong reply in 17.Bg5!, when White meets 17…dxe4 with 18.Bxe4, as 18…
Nxe4 runs into 19.Bxe7, winning the exchange.

17.Ng3 Rfe8 18.Bd2 Na6 19.e5!

The punishment for giving up the centre; now the way for the white pieces to the
black king position is cleared.

19…dxe5 20.dxe5 Nd5 21.Ng5

21…h6?

This can be refuted in two ways. 21…g6? wasn’t good either: 22.Qf3 Rf8
23.Nxh7! Kxh7 24.Qh5+ Kg8 25.Bxg6! fxg6 26.Qxg6+ Kh8 27.Nh5, and it’s
over.

The only move was 21…Bxg5, but after 22.Bxg5 White is quite OK, of course.

22.Qc2

22.Nxf7! Kxf7 23.Qh5+ Kg8 (or 23…Kf8 24.Bxh6) 24.Qg6 Bf8 25.Qh7+ Kf7
26.Bg6+ Ke7 27.Bxh6 was winning, too.

22…Bxg5

After 22…f5 White has the nice winning variation 23.exf6 Nxf6 24.Nh5! hxg5
25.Qg6 Nxh5 26.Qh7+ Kf8 27.Qh8+ Kf7 28.Qxh5+ Kf8 29.Bg6 Qd5 30.Bc3
Bf6 31.Bxf6 gxf6 32.Qh8+ Qg8 33.Qxf6+, and mate (Ehlvest).

23.Qh7+ Kf8 24.e6! fxe6

Or 24…Bxe6 25.Nf5 Bxf5 26.Qh8 mate, or 24…Rxe6 25.Qh8+ Ke7 26.Nf5+

Kf6 27.Qxg7 mate.

25.Bxg5 hxg5 26.Bg6

With 27.Nf5! as the main threat.

26…Nf6

Or 26…e5 27.Qh8+ Ke7 28.Rxe5+ Kd6 29.Bxe8! Kxe5 30.Qxg7+ Kd6 31.Ne4+
Kc6 32.Bxd7+ Rxd7 33.Rc1+.

27.Qh8+ Ng8 28.Bh7 Rb8

After 28…Kf7 White wins with 29.Nh5.

29.Nf5!
Black resigned: 29…exf5 30.Qxg8 mate.

RL 21.7

Smirin

Stempin

Polanica Zdroj 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0
9.h3 Be6 10.d4

The obvious 10.Bxe6 doesn’t yield much: 10…fxe6 11.d4, and now, for
example, 11…Qd7.

10…Bxb3 11.axb3

After 11.Qxb3 Black can play 11…Qd7 or 11…d5!? 12.exd5 Na5 13.Qc2 exd4
14.cxd4 Nxd5 15.Nc3 c6, with a playable position.

11…exd4

After 11…Qd7 12.d5 Nd8 13.c4 White has good play.

12.cxd4 d5 13.e5 Nd7?!

This is not so good. Stronger was the thematic 13…Ne4, although White is
better after 14.Nc3, e.g. 14…f5 15.exf6 Nxf6 16.Bg5 h6 17.Bh4.
14.Nc3 Nb4 15.Ne2!

On its way to f4 or g3!

15…Re8 16.Ng3

After 16.Nf4 Black parries the threat of 17.e6 with 16…Nf8.

16…c5?!

Black would have been better advised not to allow Nf5; 16…g6 would have
been wiser.

17.Nf5 Bf8

Or 17…c4 18.Nh2 Nd3 19.Re3, followed by Rg3, with an attack.

18.Ng5! h6

According to Smirin, 18…g6 19.e6! fxe6 20.Nxe6 Rxe6 21.Rxe6 gxf5 22.Qf3 is
good for White, too.
19.Nxf7!

White immediately grabs his chance!

19…Kxf7 20.Qh5+ Kg8

20…g6 is met by 21.Nxh6+ Kg7 (or 21…Bxh6 22.Qxh6 Nf8 23.Bg5 Qd7
24.Re3, with winning threats) 22.Qg4 Nc2 23.Bg5 Qc7 24.Qf3 Nb6 25.e6 Nxe1
26.Rxe1, with winning play (Smirin).

21.Qg6 Re7

After 21…Kh8 White prises open the black position with 22.Bxh6!: 22…gxh6
23.Nxh6 Bxh6 24.Qxh6+ Kg8 25.Re3, and it’s curtains.

22.Bxh6 Qe8

22…Nc2 fails to win material, but costs a piece after 23.Nxe7+ Qxe7 24.Bg5
and 25.Qxc2.

23.Nxe7+ Qxe7 24.Bd2

The biggest problem of the black position is that his pieces don’t co-ordinate.
With his next move Black tries to regroup (Nbc6), but White beats him to it.

24…Nb8 25.Bxb4 cxb4 26.Rac1 Ra7 27.Rc8 Rb7 28.e6

Black resigned. The double threat of 29.Re8 and 29.Qf7+ cannot be parried.
RL 24.13

Hellers

Colias

Philadelphia 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0
9.h3 Na5

The Chigorin Variation is the oldest of all the Ruy Lopez main lines and was
first played in the game Tarrasch-Schlechter, Monte Carlo 1902. Black clears the
way to be able to slow things down in the centre with his c-pawn.

10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7

This is Chigorin’s move. Black provides the e5 pawn with solid cover.

12.Nbd2 cxd4 13.cxd4 Bb7 14.Nf1 Rac8 15.Bb1

A very well-known position.

15…d5

The traditional move. Black gets rid of the centre, but doesn’t really manage to
equalize. Another idea is 15…exd4 16.Nxd4 (16.Ng3!? Rfe8 17.Bf4 Nc4
18.Qxd4 leads to a roughly equal position) 16…Rfe8 17.Ng3 d5 18.exd5 Bb4!,
with good play for Black.

16.exd5
After 16.dxe5 Nxe4 17.Ng3 f5!? 18.exf6 Bxf6 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.Bxe4 Bxe4
21.Rxe4 Qc2 Black has counterplay for the pawn, although White replies
22.Qd5+ Kh8 23.Ne1, still with the slightly better prospects.

16…exd4 17.Bg5
17…Rfe8

Bad is 17…Nxd5? 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Bxh7+! Kxh7 20.Ng5+ Kh6 21.Ng3 g6

22.Qg4, and White has a winning attack, e.g. 22…Qd8 23.Qh4+ Kg7 24.Qh7+
Kf6 25.Nh5+! Kxg5 26.f4+, and Black resigned, E.Teichmann-Sandin,
correspondence game 1966.

17…h6?! can also be met strongly with 18.Bxh6!, e.g. 18…gxh6 (after 18…
Nxd5, 19.Bxg7! Kxg7 20.Qxd4+ Nf6 21.Ne3 wins) 19.Qd2 Rfd8 20.Qxh6 Rxd5
21.Re4 Rh5 22.Rg4+ Nxg4 23.Qxh5 Nf6 24.Qg5+ Kf8 25.Qh6+ Ke8 26.Bf5,
with a strong attack, although it’s not 100 per cent clear whether White will be
able to win; Norlin-Nordström, correspondence game 1968.

17…Bxd5 18.Nxd4 Rfd8 19.Nf5 Be6 20.Qf3, finally, also gives White the better
play, Olafsson-Eliskases, Beverwijk 1959.

18.Qd3 Qc4

After 18…g6 the game Ernst-Hedman, Avesta 1993, had this interesting
continuation: 19.Rxe7! Qxe7 20.Qxd4 Rc4 (after 20…Kg7 White wins with
21.d6) 21.Qxf6 Qxf6 22.Bxf6 Rc1 23.d6 Bc6 24.b4! Nb7 25.Be4! Rxf1+
26.Kxf1 Rxe4 27.Ne5 Rd4 28.Nxc6 Rxd6 29.Ne7+ Kf8 30.Bh4 Rd4 31.Bg5,
and White was winning.

19.Rxe7! Rxe7 20.Qa3! h6 21.Bxf6 Qxf1+

A nice try, but White takes it in his stride.

22.Kh2

Not, of course, 22.Kxf1? in view of 22…Rc1+, and mate.

22…Qxf2

The main threat was 23.Bh7+, winning the queen.

23.Bxe7
Black has lost a piece and could easily have resigned here.

23…Bxd5 24.Bh4 Qe3 25.Qd3 Qxd3 26.Bxd3 Bxf3 27.gxf3 Re8 28.Bf2 Nc4
29.Bxc4 bxc4 30.Bxd4 Re2+ 31.Kg3

Black resigned.

RL 26.4

Berggreen

Wolny

Correspondence game 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Be7 7.Re1 d6 8.c3 0-0
9.h3 Bb7

If the Breyer was the variation of the ’70s, under the tutelage of World
Champion Karpov the Zaitsev Variation totally dominated the Ruy Lopez in the
’80s.

10.d4 Re8

It has been the great merit of Igor Zaitsev, Anatoly Karpov’s loyal second, that
he was the first to see that Black can play this thematic move (pressure on e4!)
without any preparation, despite the weakness of f7.

11.Ng5 Rf8 12.f4!?

The consistent continuation. If he wants to, White can always retrace his steps
with 12.Nf3, of course, allowing Black to go for a draw by move repetition
(12…Re8 13.Ng5 Rf8 14.Nf3) or to change to another defensive system.

12…exf4 13.Bxf4 Na5 14.Bc2

White is only too happy to hang on to the Spanish bishop. After 14.Nd2 Nxb3
15.axb3 c5 (or 15…Nd5 16.exd5 Bxg5 17.Bxg5 Qxg5 18.c4) the desired 16.d5?
is a big no-no in view of 16…Nxd5. This means that Black has a very
satisfactory position.

14…Nd5

This is Zaitsev’s real discovery.

15.exd5

In the stem game Rajna-Zaitsev, Szolnok 1975, White had no compensation

whatsoever after 15.Nxh7? Nxf4 16.Nxf8 Qxf8 17.Rf1 g5 18.Nd2 Qg7. 15.Qh5
h6 16.Ne6? fxe6 17.Bxh6 won’t work either, as Black can now choose between
17…Bh4 and 17…Nf6.

15…Bxg5 16.Qh5 h6 17.Nd2!

This recommendation by Lev Gutman keeps White’s chances alive. In early

games with 12.f4 White invariably played 17.Bg3, but then 17…g6 18.Qf3 Nc4
19.Na3 Nb6 20.Bb3 h5! turned out to be pleasant for Black.

17…Bxd5

Black confidently takes the pawn. As Gutman had already indicated, Black will
find it very hard to mobilize the a5 knight after 17…g6 (or 17…Qf6) 18.Bxg5
Qxg5 19.Qxg5 hxg5 20.Be4 Rfe8 21.b3!, as the queenside often remains
permanently weak after the obvious 20…Nc4 21.Nxc4 bxc4 22.b3!.

The immediate 17…Nc4 may be worth a second attempt. In Westerinen-

Sonntag, Gausdal 1987, 18.Àe4!? Ãxf4 19.Qf5 Ãe3+ 20.Õxe3 g6 21.Õg3
(21.Àf6+ Kg7 22.Àh5+ Kh8 23.Qf4 Qg5, and Black stays alive) 21…Kg7?
22.Àc5! Qf6? 23.Àe6+ led to a veritable Blitzsieg, but after 21…Kh8 22.Qf6+
Qxf6 23.Àxf6 Àxb2 things look very differently.
18.Ne4
The critical position. How is Black to defend himself?

18…g6

18…Bxe4 19.Bxe4 Bxf4 20.Qf5 Bh2+! (compared to the immediate 20…g6

21.Qxf4 d5 22.Bf3 Kh7 it makes sense for Black to lure the white king to h2
with a view to a possible pin along the diagonal) 21.Kxh2 g6 22.Qf4 d5 23.Bf3
Kh7. Because of the lousy position of the knight White, despite being a pawn
down, has good play after 24.b3, followed by doubling on the e-file.

The safest approach is undoubtedly 18…Bxf4 19.Qf5 g6 20.Nf6+ (after 20.Qxf4

Kg7 White has insufficient compensation) 20…Kg7 21.Nh5+ Kh8 (Black wants
more than perpetual check via 21…gxh5 22.Qh7+ Kf6 23.Qf5+ Kg7) 22.Qxf4
Qg5 23.Qxg5 hxg5 24.Nf6 Be6, with roughly equal chances, Grünfeld-Nikolic,
Lugano 1987.

19.Bxg5 hxg5?

Correct was 19…gxh5 20.Bxd8 Bxe4, although the black knight causes renewed
worry after 21.Bxe4 (21.Rxe4!? Raxd8 22.Rae1 is also possible) 21…Raxd8
22.a4.

20.Qh6! Re8

20…Bxe4 21.Bxe4 Rb8 22.Bd5 Qf6 23.Rf1 Qg7 24.Qxg5 also looks promising
for White.

21.Nxg5 Qf6 22.Qh7+ Kf8 23.Bxg6! Qg7

Black can take none of the hanging pieces: 23…fxg6 24.Rf1; 23…Qxg5 24.Qh8
mate; 23…Qxg6 24.Qh8+ Qg8 25.Nh7 mate; 23…Rxe1+ 24.Rxe1 Re8
25.Qh6+.

24.Qh4! Kg8 25.Bh7+ Kf8 26.Bd3 Kg8 27.g4!

With the threat against g2 gone, there is no longer any possible cure for 28.Nh7.

27…Nc4 28.Nh7 Rxe1+ 29.Rxe1

Black resigned in view of the variation 29…Be6 30.Nf6+ Kf8 31.Bh7 and 32.d5.

RL 27.4

Podkrajsek

Van Perlo

Correspondence game 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.0-0 Nxe4

The usual continuation here is 6…Be7. With the text Black goes for the
extremely risky Riga Variation, which normally arises via the Open Spanish:
5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 exd4!?.

7.Re1 d5 8.c4

The Riga Variation is one of the systems that, on the basis of one game, was
regarded for years as having been refuted. In this case the proof came from an
unimpeachable source. Capablanca-Edward Lasker, New York 1915, went as
follows: 8.Nxd4 Bd6 9.Nxc6 Bxh2+ 10.Kh1 (for fire-eaters the drawback is that
White can draw by force here with 10.Kxh2 Qh4+ 11.Kg1 Qxf2+ 12.Kh2.
Playing for a win two pieces down is a bit too much of a good thing) 10…Qh4
 analysis diagram

11.Rxe4! (every 10 years another person comes up with the definitive refutation
of the Riga. This one goes 11.Bg5 Qxg5 12.Qxd5, but after 12…Qxd5 13.Nb4+
Kd8! 14.Nxd5 Nc5 Black remains a healthy pawn up) 11…dxe4 12.Qd8+ (the
saving move) 12…Qxd8 13.Nxd8 Kxd8 14.Kxh2 Be6 15.Be3 f5 16.Nc3 Ke7
17.g4! g6 18.Kg3, and Capablanca converted the endgame into a win in superior
fashion. Even after a century of investigation, the question of whether White is
really better remains a hard one to answer.

8…Bb4

The only alternative is 8…dxc3 9.Nxc3 (the over-ambitious 9.Ne5 fails to 9…

Qf6!) 9…Bb4 10.Bg5 f6, and now White can jack up the tension some more
with 11.Ne5!?.

9.cxd5

There is no way back, of course.

9…Bxe1 10.Qxe1 0-0 11.Qxe4

The Riga variation is full of pitfalls. Kortchnoi, for example, at some stage
recommended inserting 11.Bxc6 bxc6, and only now 12.Qxe4, but this won’t
work in view of the intermediate move 11…Nc5!, e.g. 12.b4 (or also 12.Qb4)
12…Nd3 13.Qd2 Nxc1 14.Ba4 Bg4, and Black is better.

After 11.dxc6 Nc5 12.Qd1 Black might consider 12…b5!?.

11…Re8 12.Qf4!

This is an enormous improvement compared to 12.Qd3 Ne5! (stronger than 12…

Qxd5) 13.Nxe5 Rxe5, followed by 14…Rxd5.

12…Qxd5 13.Nbd2 b5
The endgame after 13…Qd6 14.Qxd6 cxd6 15.Nc4 b5 16.Nxd6 Rd8 17.Nxc8
Raxc8 18.Bd1 offers Black very bad prospects.

14.Bb3 Qd7 15.Ne4 Nd8

This passive move plays into White’s hands, but it is difficult to come up with
sensible alternatives. 15…Qe7 16.Bd5 Bb7 17.Qf5! gives White a strong attack,
while the endgame after 15…Re7 16.Qh4 (even stronger than 16.Bd2 or 16.Nc5
Qf5? 17.Qxf5 Bxf5 18.Bg5, winning the exchange) 16…Qg4 17.Qxg4 Bxg4
18.Bd5 is also bad for Black, e.g. 18…Rae8 19.Bxc6 Rxe4 20.Bd2 Bxf3 21.gxf3
Re2 22.Bxe8 Rxd2 23.b4 Rb2 24.a3.

16.Bd2! Qe7
17.Neg5!

White fearlessly goes on the rampage.

17…Qf6

The attempt 17…c5 18.Re1 Qf8 leads to shipwreck after 19.Re5 Rxe5 (as after
19…c4 20.Nxh7! the attack strikes home) 20.Nxe5 Ra7 21.Qe4 g6 22.Qh4.

18.Qxc7

This, in a higher sense, is decisive. Black has lost his pawn front.

18…Be6 19.Re1 Re7 20.Qc2 g6 21.Ne4 Qg7 22.Bg5 Bxb3 23.Qxb3 Re6
24.Nf6+ Kh8 25.Qd5!

The accurate final move. Black resigned.

RL 27.8

Grigorov

Stoica

Bucharest 1980

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4

The Open Ruy Lopez, a hobby-horse of Kortchnoi, amongst others.

6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.a4

In this basic position of the Open Ruy Lopez, 9.c3, 9.Nbd2 and 9.Qe2 are the
most commonly played moves.

9…Na5?!

9…b4 10.a5 Nc5 is stronger.

10.axb5 axb5

10…Nxb3 11.cxb3 axb5 12.Rxa8 Qxa8 13.Nd4 is also good for White.

11.Nd4! Bc5

Bad is 11…Be7? in view of 12.Rxa5! Rxa5 13.Nc6 Qa8 14.Nxa5 Qxa5 15.Bxd5.

12.c3!

Now 12.Rxa5? is not good: 12…Rxa5 13.Nc6 Qa8 14.Nxa5 Qxa5 15.Bxd5
Nxf2!. 12.Nxb5?! 0-0 also gives Black good chances.

12…0-0

In the game I.Zaitsev-Savon, Moscow 1969, Black played 12…Bb6. Play

continued 13.Bc2 Nc4 (or 13…0-0 14.b4! Nc4 15.Rxa8 Qxa8 16.f3 f6 17.Kh1
Bxd4 18.cxd4 Ng5 19.exf6 gxf6 20.Qe1, with good play for White) 14.Rxa8
Qxa8 15.f3 Nc5 16.f4 Ne4 17.b3 Na5 18.f5 Bc8 19.Qg4 Kf8 (after 19…g6
White breaks open the black position with 20.e6!) 20.Bxe4 dxe4 21.Ba3+ b4
22.Bxb4+ c5 23.Bxa5 Qxa5 24.Ne6+! Bxe6 25.fxe6 c4+ 26.Kh1 Qxe5 27.exf7
Ke7 28.Rf5 Qe6 29.Qxg7, and Black resigned.

13.Bc2!

After 13.f3?! Black has the trick 13…f6! 14.fxe4 fxe5 15.Rxf8+ Qxf8, e.g.
16.exd5 Bf7 17.Bc2 exd4 18.cxd4 Bb6! 19.Nc3 Qb4! (Grigorov).

13…Nc4?!
In view of what follows, this move must be rejected. According to Grigorov,
13…Qh4 14.b4! Bxd4 15.cxd4 Nc6 (or 15…Nc4 16.Rxa8 Rxa8 17.f3 Ng5
18.Nc3, with advantage) 16.Rxa8 Rxa8 17.f3 Ng5 18.f4 Ne4 19.f5 Bc8 20.Bb3
Qd8 (20…Nxb4 21.Ba3) 21.Qd3 Rb8 22.Ba3 is also very good for White.

It may be necessary to qualify this. After 18…Bg4 19.Qd2 Ne6 White will not
get time to effect the advance f4-f5 because of the double attack on d4.
14.Rxa8 Qxa8 15.f3 f6 16.Kh1!

White carefully avoids the unclear tactical complications after 16.fxe4 fxe5.

16…Ng5

Or 16…Bxd4 17.cxd4 Ng5 (17…fxe5 18.fxe4 Rxf1+ 19.Qxf1 exd4 20.b3)

18.exf6 gxf6 19.Qd3 Bf7 (19…Rf7 20.h4 costs material) 20.Bxg5 Bg6 21.Qc3.
and the knight is sadly misplaced on g5.

17.exf6 gxf6 18.h4 Bxd4 19.Qxd4 Nf7 20.Qxf6

Black has saved his knight, but his position is in tatters.

20…Bd7 21.Re1 Qc6 22.Qd4 Ncd6 23.Re7 Ne8

After 23…Re8 White scores a nice win with 24.Bh6!.

24.Qd3 Nf6 25.Bg5 Kg7 26.h5 Rd8 27.Qd4 h6 28.Qd3 Ne4 29.fxe4 hxg5
30.exd5 Qf6 31.Qg6+

Black resigned.

RL 27.9

Winsnes

Krasenkow

Stockholm 1989
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.Be3 Nc5

According to the theory, 9…Be7 10.Nbd2 Nc5 leads to equal play.

10.Nc3!? Nxb3 11.cxb3

There is a rule of thumb that tells you always to take towards the centre. Here,
White correctly ignores it because of the half-open c-file.

11…Be7 12.Rc1 Qd7 13.Qd2

Another good plan is 13.Ne2, followed by 14.Nf4.

13…0-0 14.Rfd1 Rad8 15.Bg5

Swapping the bishops weakens Black’s dark squares.

15…d4?!

This move gives up square e4, but after 15…h6?! White would have made the
sacrifice 16.Bxh6! gxh6 17.Qxh6, with a probably winning attack. 15…Bxg5
16.Qxg5 h6 17.Qg3, possibly followed by 18.Ne4, was not satisfactory either.

According to Krasenkow, Black should have played 15…f6, with slightly better
prospects for White after 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Bxf6 Rxf6 18.Nd4.

16.Ne4

16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Nxb5 also looks good, but after 17…Bd5 18.Nfxd4 (bad is
18.Nbxd4? Bxf3 19.Rxc6 Rxd4) 18…Nxe5 19.Nxc7 Bb7! Black has good
compensation for the two pawns. Thus Krasenkow.

16…Bd5 17.Qf4! Bxg5 18.Nfxg5 Qe7?

Now White strikes hard. Correct, according to Krasenkow, was 18…h6!, as the
sacrifice 19.Nf6+ gxf6 20.exf6 does not have the desired effect: 20…Rfe8
21.Qg3 Qf5 22.Nxf7+ Kxf7 23.Qg7+ Ke6, and White has nothing. So he will
have to withdraw the knight, after which he is only marginally better.
19.Rxc6!

White must first eliminate the knight. Less strong is 19.Nf6+ immediately; after
19…gxf6 20.Nxh7 Nxe5! 21.Nxf6+ Kg7 22.Qg5+ Ng6 23.Nh5+ Kh7 24.Nf6+
Kg7 White has no more than perpetual check.

19…Bxc6 20.Nf6+! gxf6 21.Nxh7! Kxh7

21…fxe5 constituted Black’s most stubborn defence, but after 22.Nf6+ Qxf6
23.Qxf6 Rd6 24.Qxe5 Re8 25.Qf5 White will win the endgame.

22.Qh4+ Kg7 23.Qg4+ Kh8 24.Rd3 Be4 25.Rh3+ Bh7 26.Qf5

Black resigned.

RL 27.10

Geller

Krasenkow

Cappelle la Grande 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.Nbd2 Be7 10.Nxe4

This looks good, as the black pawn position is seriously compromised. Yet the
result is slightly disappointing.
10…dxe4 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Ng5 Bxg5

The queen swap 12…Qxd1 13.Rxd1 Bxg5 14.Bxg5 is slightly better for White,
but 12…Qd5!? would be a good alternative.

13.Qh5+ g6 14.Qxg5
14…0-0

Good for White is 14…Qxg5?! 15.Bxg5 0-0 16.Bf6, e.g. 16…Nb4 17.Rae1
Nxc2 18.Rxe4, but 14…Qd5!? is also worth considering again. After 15.Bf4
Rd8 Black now has good play, Betker-Tronhjem, correspondence game 1990.

15.Qg4 Qd5 16.Re1

The theory declares that the position after 16.Bf4 Rad8 is roughly equal.

16…Rf5!

16…Nd4?! 17.Bh6 Nxc2 18.Rad1 is good for White here, and White is quite
OK, too, after 16…Nxe5 17.Qxe4.

17.Bh6!

Preventing Black from taking his rook to f8. 17.Rxe4?! Raf8! would have
yielded Black good play.

17…Qc5

After 17…Qd4 18.Qe2 Qxb2 19.Qxe4 Qc3 20.f4 White is slightly better
(Krasenkow), but 17…Nxe5!? is also a possibility. After 18.Qxe4 Rd8 19.Bf4
Qxe4 20.Rxe4 White seems to be better, but Black can liquidate to a roughly
equal endgame: 20…Nc4! 21.Bxc7 Rc8 22.Bg3 Nxb2 23.Rxe6 a5 24.Ra6, and
the game Chandler-Beckemeyer, German Bundesliga 1990/91, was drawn here –
White cannot hold on to his extra pawn.

18.Re2 Rd8

18…Nd4?! is simply met by 19.Rd2.

19.h4! Rd5 20.Rf1

20.Rae1 is a good move as well.

20…Qc4
After the liquidation 20…Rdxe5 21.Rxe4 Qxc2 22.Rxe5 Nxe5 23.Qd4 Qd3
24.Qa7 Nf7 25.Be3 White remains slightly better, according to an analysis by
Kortchnoi.

21.b3 Qc3?!

Black would have been better off playing 21…Nxe5 22.Qxe4 Qxe4 23.Rxe4 Nf7
here, when White has little advantage, according to Geller.

22.h5!

A strong pawn sacrifice.

22…Nxe5 23.Qxe4 Rxh5 24.Bf4

White has very good compensation for his pawn. He is exerting strong pressure
on the black position, pawn e6 is weak and the black king is feeling the draught.

24…Rd4?

A fata morgana. According to Geller, 24…Rh4 was relatively Black’s best move,
although White retains the advantage after 25.Re3 Qc6 26.g3. Krasenkow has
suggested 24…Rf5, to improve the co-ordination of the black pieces, as stronger.

25.Qa8+ Kf7 26.Bxe5

Here Black had planned 26…Rdh4, but now he saw that this would be
effectively met by 27.Qf3+! Ke8 (or 27…Qxf3 28.gxf3, and there is no mate)
28.Qxh5. So he decided to resign instead.

RL 27.13

Wolff

Flear
London 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 d4
11.Ng5!?

Igor Zaitsev’s sensational move, first used by Karpov against Kortchnoi in the
10th match game for the world championship, Baguio 1978.

11…Qxg5

A risky reply is 11…Bd5, when White may even be able to capture on f7.

The above-mentioned stem game Karpov-Kortchnoi and several later games,

including Kasparov-Anand for the PCA-championship, New York 1995, saw
11…dxc3 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.bxc3 Qd3.

12.Qf3 Bd7?!

Stronger is 12…0-0-0! 13.Bxe6+ fxe6 14.Qxc6 Qxe5 15.b4 Qd5 16.Qxd5 exd5
17.bxc5 dxc3 18.Nb3 d4, with extremely complicated play. Going by recent
insights (Kasparov-Shirov, Linares 2001) Black hardly has sufficient
compensation. How long will this assessment stand up?

13.Bxf7+ Ke7 14.Bd5 Nxe5 15.Qe2 d3 16.Qe1 c6?!

And here 16…Re8 is stronger: 17.f4 Qh5 18.fxe5 Kd8 19.Bf7 Qxe5 20.Bxe8
Qxe1 21.Rxe1 Bxe8 22.Nf3, with only slightly better prospects for White.

17.f4!

17.Nf3 seems to refute this, but after 17…Qf5 18.Nxe5 cxd5 19.Ng6++ Kf7
20.Nxh8+ Kg8 the tables have been turned!

17…Qh6 18.Bf3!

Simple and good. 18.Qxe5+?! Kd8 19.Bf3 Bd6 is unclear.

18…Kd8

18…Qxf4 19.Bxc6 is good for White.

19.fxe5 Be7 20.Nb3 Qg6 21.Nd4

White is better in view of his passed e-pawn and the less than happy position of
the black king.

21…Kc7 22.b4 Ne6 23.Be4 Nxd4 24.cxd4

24.Bxg6 is good, too: 24…Ne2+ 25.Kh1 hxg6 26.Bf4!, with advantage for
White.

24…Bxb4

24…Qe6 25.Bxd3 is hopeless.

25.Qxb4 Qxe4 26.Qd6+ Kc8 27.Bd2

27.Bf4 also looked strong.

27…Re8

Or 27…Qd5 28.Qxd5 cxd5 29.Rac1+ Kd8 30.Rf7, with the terrible threat of
31.Bg5+.

28.Rf7 Ra7 29.Rc1 Re6 30.Rf8+ Re8 31.e6! Rxf8

After 31…Qxe6 White decides the game with 32.Rxc6+.

32.exd7+ Kb7 33.d8Q Rxd8 34.Qxd8

Black resigned.

RL 27.14

Przewoznik

Brglez
Correspondence game 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 d4 11.Bxe6 Nxe6 12.cxd4 Ncxd4 13.Ne4 Qd5

One of the many other games played with this variation went as follows: 13…
Be7 14.Be3 Nf5 15.Qc2 0-0 16.Rad1 (16.Nf6+ Bxf6 17.Qxf5 Be7 18.Rad1 Qc8
yields little, Van der Wiel-Kortchnoi, Sarajevo 1984) 16…Nxe3 17.fxe3 Qc8
18.h3 Rd8 19.Nh2 Rxd1 20.Qxd1 Qe8 21.Ng3 Rd8 22.Qc2 c5 23.Ng4 c4
24.Qe4 Rc8 25.Nf5 b4 26.Nfh6+ gxh6 27.Nxh6+ Kh8 28.Nxf7+ Kg8 29.Qg4+
Ng7 30.e6 Bc5 31.Qg5 Qe7 32.Nh6+ Kh8 33.Qe5 Qc7, and a draw was agreed,
as White still has perpetual check with Nh6-f7-h6, Prasad-Ernst, Gausdal 1991.

14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Nc3 Qd7

15…Qc4 is possible as well.

16.Be3 Bc5 17.Qh5!

Here, 17.Ne4 Ba7 18.Rc1 0-0 19.Nc5 Bxc5 20.Rxc5 Rfd8 leads to roughly equal
play, Beliavsky-Dorfman, Frunze 1981. The text is more active.

17…Qe6

After 17…0-0, 18.e6! is very annoying.

18.Rad1 Rd8 19.Bg5! Rd7

If Black goes 19…Be7, White grabs the advantage with 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Qg4
Ne6 22.Nd5 Qc5 23.Nf4 Nxf4 24.Rxd8+ Kxd8 25.Qxf4 Re8 26.Re1 or
22.Rxd8+ Qxd8 23.Rd1.

20.Ne4 Bb6 21.Rfe1

21…0-0?

This is refuted in one fell swoop. 21…Qxa2? 22.e6! Nxe6 23.Nc3 won’t work
either, but after 21…h6 (21…Qg6 22.Qg4! h6 23.Rxd4! or 22…Qe6? 23.Nf6+!
is dangerous) Black looks like being able to hold, and if 22.h3, then 22…Qf5! –
again, not 22…0-0?, this time in view of 23.Bxh6! gxh6 24.Nf6+ Kg7 25.Re4!,
with a winning attack.

22.Nf6+!

Black resigned in view of 22…gxf6 23.Bxf6 Qf5 (23…Ne2+ is met by the

laconic 24.Kh1) 24.Qxf5 Nxf5 25.Rxd7.

RL 28.2

Antunes

Flear

Pau 1988

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.Qe2

This idea was launched by Keres against Euwe in their world championship
match of 1948. The move has completely fallen out of fashion.
9…Bc5 10.Be3 0-0 11.Rd1 d4!?

Sharply played. After 11…Na5 12.Nbd2 Bxe3 13.Qxe3 Nxd2 14.Rxd2 or 11…
Bxe3 12.Qxe3 Ne7 13.Nbd2 White has a slight advantage.
12.Nc3

12.Bxd4?! Nxd4 13.Qxe4 Bf5 is good for Black, and 12.c3 is met by 12…dxe3
13.Rxd8 exf2+, with compensation for the queen, as in the game.

12…Nxc3 13.bxc3 dxe3! 14.Rxd8 exf2+ 15.Kf1 Raxd8 16.Qe4

According to Antunes, 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.Ng5 Rf5 18.Nxe6 Rd5 (and not 18…
Rxe5?, when 19.Qg4 is winning) 19.Qg4 would yield White the slightly better
play.

16…Ne7

16…Bxb3 17.axb3 Ne7 is also unclear.

17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Ng5 Nf5 19.Ke2!

19.Nxe6? won’t work in view of 19…Ne3+ 20.Ke2 Rd1!, and the black f-pawn
decides.

19…Be3 20.Nf3 Rd5

The start of an interesting combination based on the queening of the f-pawn that,
however, turns out to be just off the mark in the end. Correct was 20…Bb6, with
the threat of 21…Ne3. According to Antunes, White does not seem to have
anything better than 21.Ng5 Be3 22.Nf3, with move repetition.

21.g4 Rfd8 22.gxf5 Rd1

This is what Black had pinned his hopes on.

23.Rxd1 Rxd1 24.Qa8+

But White is there first!

24…Kf7 25.fxe6+ Ke7

Or 25…Kxe6 26.Qe8+ Kf5 27.Qf7+ Ke4 28.Ng5+ Bxg5 29.Kxd1, and it’s
finished.
26.Kxe3 f1Q 27.Qg8!

Black is hopelessly lost; the knight on f3 provides enough protection for the
white king.

27…Re1+ 28.Kf4!

Black resigned in view of 28…g5+ 29.Kg3!, or 28…Qc4+ 29.Kg3 Qxe6

30.Qxg7+.

RL 28.9

Den Ouden

Diaconescu

Correspondence game 1982

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.Qe2 Be7 10.Rd1 0-0 11.c4

The idea behind the Keres System.

11…bxc4 12.Bxc4 Qd7

Another way to play the position is 12…Bc5 13.Be3 Bxe3 14.Qxe3 Qb8 15.Bb3
Na5, a favourite Jan Timman weapon.

13.Nc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 f6!?

Black must look for counterplay; 14…Na5 15.Bd3 c5 16.Bg5 Bxg5 17.Nxg5 h6
18.Nxe6 Qxe6 19.Bc2, with the threat of 20.Qd3, is good for White.

15.exf6 Bxf6 16.Ng5

Another idea is 16.Bg5, when 16…Na5? 17.Qxe6+! Qxe6 18.Bxd5 loses a pawn
(Fischer-Ree, Netanya 1968), as does 16…Rae8? 17.Bxf6 Rxf6 18.Bxd5 Bxd5
19.Rxd5 Rxe2 20.Rxd7, Grefe-Estrin, Albena 1974. 16…Bxc3 17.Rac1 Bf6
18.Bxf6 Rxf6 19.Ng5 Ne7 20.Re1 dxc4 21.Nxe6 is good for White, too.

The correct reaction is 16…Kh8!, e.g. 17.Bxf6 Rxf6 18.Ng5 Na5 19.Qd3 Bg8
20.Ne4 (20.Bxd5?! Rd6 21.c4 Nxc4! 22.Qxc4 Rxd5 is good for Black) 20…Rg6
21.Bxd5 (or 21.Ng3 Nxc4 22.Qxc4 Rc6 23.Qd4 Qf7, with a roughly equal
position) 21…Rd8 22.c4 c6 23.Bxg8!? Qxd3 24.Rxd3 Rxd3 25.Bf7 Rg4, with
unclear play. White has compensation for the exchange. Thus an analysis from
Kortchnoi, one of the greatest experts of the Open Ruy Lopez.

16…Bxg5 17.Bxg5 h6 18.Be3 Ne5 19.Bb3 Qd6 20.h3

20.Rd4 was another good possibility: 20…c5 21.Rf4 g5 22.Rxf8+ Rxf8 23.f3,
and White is slightly better on the strength of his bishop pair.

20…Rae8 21.Rd4 g5?!

This prevents 22.Rf4, but it badly weakens the black king position. Earlier
analyses had shown, however, that 21…c5 22.Rf4 is good for White, e.g. 22…
g5 23.Rxf8+ Rxf8 24.Bxc5 Qxc5 25.Qxe5 Qxf2+ 26.Kh1, with a large
advantage for White, or 22…Nf7 23.Rd1 Qe5 24.Qd2, also with advantage for
White, Moiseev-Van Perlo, correspondence game 1976/77.

According to Kortchnoi, Black should play 22…Nd7!, after which White is only
slightly better.

22.Rad1 c6 23.c4!

Consistent; but the continuation needed to be calculated very accurately!

23…Bxh3 24.cxd5

24.gxh3 is impossible in view of 24…Nf3+, of course.

24…c5 25.Re4! Bd7 26.Rc1 Bb5 27.Bxc5 Qf6

Other moves lose as well: 27…Qxc5 28.Rxc5 Bxe2 29.Rxe5! Rxe5 30.d6+, or
else 27…Bxe2 28.Bxd6 Nd3 29.Rxe8 Rxe8 30.Rc7.

28.Qh5 Rc8

Black makes a last-ditch attempt to exploit the pin on Bc5.

29.Rxe5!

And the attempt is beautifully rebuffed!

29…Qxe5 30.Qg6+ Qg7 31.d6+

Black resigned. There now follows 31…Kh8 32.Bd4 Rxc1+ 33.Kh2 Qxd4
34.Qxh6 mate!

RL 29.5

Martin del Campo

Alvarez

Havana 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 Bg4 11.Bc2 Be7

After 11…Ne6 12.Re1 Bc5 13.Nb3 Ba7 14.a4 White is slightly better, too.
12.Re1 Qd7

Deciding between the text and 12…0-0 is a matter of taste.

13.Nf1 Rd8 14.Ne3 Bh5 15.b4!

This looks even stronger than the old move 15.Nf5. After 15…0-0 16.Nxe7+
Nxe7 17.b4 Black must be on his guard: 17…Na4? 18.Bh7+! Kxh7 19.e6!, and
Black had to resign in Hübner-Kortchnoi, Tilburg 1987. Two rounds later,
against Andrey Sokolov, Kortchnoi demonstrated how it ought to be done: 17…
Ne4 18.Bxe4 dxe4 19.Qxd7 Rxd7, with chances on both sides.

15…Ne6 16.Nf5 0-0 17.a4 Bg6 18.g4 f6?!

This move fails to yield the desired counterplay. In fact, it only weakens Black’s
king position and square e6. 18…d4 would have yielded him better chances of
active play, e.g. 19.axb5 axb5 20.Be4 Rfe8 21.Qd3 Nb8, and in this difficult
position White is marginally better.

19.axb5 axb5 20.Ra6! Rfe8

20…Nb8? is refuted by 21.Rxe6! Qxe6 22.exf6 Qxf6 23.Bg5.

21.Qd3
21…Nxe5?

21…fxe5? is met by 22.Qxb5, and White wins. Relatively best was 21…Nb8,
with advantage for White after 22.Ra5 c6 23.Be3.

22.Rxe5!

The refutation of Black’s plan. The continuation hits the nail on the head.

22…fxe5 23.Nxe5 Qc8 24.Nxg6 hxg6

Other moves lose as well: 24…Qxa6 25.Nfxe7+, or 24…Bf6 25.Nfe7+! Bxe7

26.Nxe7+ Rxe7 27.Qxh7+ Kf8 28.Qh8+ Kf7 29.Bg6+! Kf6 (or 29…Kxg6
30.Qh5+ Kf6 31.Qf5 mate) 30.Qh4+ Ke5 31.Qg3+ Kf6 32.Qf4+ Kxg6 33.Qf5
mate.

25.Nh6+! Kh8

Or 25…gxh6 26.Qxg6+ Ng7 27.Qh7+ Kf8 28.Qh8+ Kf7 29.Bg6 mate.

26.Qxg6 Nf8 27.Qf7

Black resigned, as 27…Nh7 is followed by the well-known smothered mate

28.Qg8+ Rxg8 29.Nf7.

RL 29.7

Tolnai

Gyimesi
Kecskemet 1993

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.Be3 Be7 10.c3 Nc5 11.Bc2 Nd7

After 11…Bg4 12.Nbd2 Ne6 (12…Nxe5? doesn’t work: 13.Bxc5 Bxc5 14.Qe1!)
13.Qb1!? Bh5 14.a4 White is slightly better. With the text Black is assaulting
pawn e5.
12.Re1!?

Bad is 12.Bf4? in view of 12…g5 13.Bg3 h5, but 12.Nd4 is playable. An

amusing example is Tal-Timman, Montpellier 1985: 12…Ndxe5 13.f3 Nc4
14.Nxc6 Nxe3 15.Nxd8 Nxd1 16.Nxe6 Ne3 17.Nxc7+ Kd7 18.Nxa8 Nxc2
19.Nd2 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 Nxa1 21.Rxa1 Rxa8, with an equal position. The knights
taking centre stage!

12…Ndxe5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.Bd4 Ng6 15.Bxg7

An interesting suggestion from Todorovic is 15.Qh5!?.

15…Rg8 16.Bxg6 Rxg7 17.Rxe6 hxg6 18.Re2

The black pieces are slightly off-target, but it is not totally clear how White can
exploit this. Other attempts instead of the text have been 18.Re5 and 18.Re3, but
they aren’t any stronger.

18…Kf8 19.Nd2 Bf6

The game Khalifman-Kortchnoi, Ubeda 1997, saw 19…Rg8 20.Nf3 Bf6 21.Qd2
Qd6 22.Qh6+ Bg7 23.Qe3 Rh8 24.a4 bxa4 25.Rxa4 Bf6, with a roughly equal
position.

20.Nf3 Qd6

A good alternative was 20…Rg8!?, N la Kortchnoi.

21.a4! Rd8

21…Rb8 was also an option.

22.Qd3 c6 23.axb5 axb5 24.Ra6 Rh7 25.h3 Qc5 26.Ne5?!

Throwing away all his advantage. Correct was 26.Nd4!, e.g. 26…Bxd4 27.cxd4
Qc1+ 28.Kh2, or 26…Rd6 27.Ra8+ Rd8 (27…Kg7 28.Qe3!) 28.Qxg6! or 26…
Rc8 27.Nxb5!, always with advantage for White.

26…Bxe5 27.Rxe5 b4
Now White’s superiority has evaporated.

28.Qg3

28.cxb4 is met by 28…Qc1+ 29.Qf1 Qxb2.

28…bxc3 29.bxc3 Qd6 30.Ra7 d4! 31.cxd4 Qxd4 32.Qg5

After 32.Ree7 Qd1+ 33.Kh2 Qd6 the position is equal, too.

32…Rb8 33.Ree7 Qd6 34.f4?

After a number of planless moves White now perpetrates a totally unnecessary

weakening of his position. After 34.g3 he would still have been fine.

34…Rb1+ 35.Kh2
35…Rxh3+!

White’s punishment is not long in coming!

36.Kxh3

36.gxh3 also loses: 36…Qd2+ 37.Kg3 (or 37.Qg2 Qxf4+ 38.Qg3 Rb2+) 37…
Rb3+, and mate.

36…Rh1+ 37.Kg3

Or 37.Kg4 Qd1+ 38.Kg3 Qd3+.

37…Qd3+

White resigned.

RL 29.8

Averbakh

Zak

Moscow 1947

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.c3 Be7 10.Be3 0-0 11.Nbd2 Nxd2
Other possibilities are 11…Qd7 and 11…Bg4.

12.Qxd2 Na5

Black can also play 12…Qd7 here: 13.Qd3 Na5 14.Bc2 g6 15.Bh6 Bf5 16.Qe2
Rfe8, with roughly equal chances. White has attacking possibilities on the
kingside, but there’s no need at all for Black to despair.

13.Bc2 Nc4 14.Qd3 g6 15.Bh6 Nxb2

Another nice example of White’s chances is 15…Re8 16.Qd4 c5 17.Qf4 Nxb2

18.Ng5 Qb6 19.Rae1 d4 20.Ne4 Bf5 21.Nd6 Bxd6 22.exd6 d3 23.Bb1 b4
24.Re5 Re6 25.Rxe6 fxe6 26.Qe5, and White had a winning attack in Armati-
Koshnitsky, correspondence game 1941.

16.Qe3 Re8 17.Nd4 Qd7?!

This is a weak move. Stronger was 17…Bf8 18.Bxf8 Rxf8 19.Qh6 c5! 20.Bxg6
hxg6 21.Nxe6 fxe6 22.Qxg6+ Kh8 ‘and it is doubtful whether White has more
than perpetual check’, or 17…Bd7!?, ‘after which White still has to prove that
his initiative is worth the pawn he sacrificed for it’, according to Averbakh.

18.f4
18…Nc4

Averbakh gives this move a question mark, but in Levit-Rusakov,

correspondence game 1986, White also got a winning attack after 18…c5
19.Nxe6 Nc4 (or 19…fxe6 20.f5!) 20.Qh3 Qxe6 21.f5 Qxe5 22.Rae1 Qd6
23.fxg6 hxg6 24.Bg7! Kxg7 25.Rxf7+!. Very beautiful!

19.Qg3 c5 20.f5!

The decisive breakthrough.

20…cxd4 21.fxg6! hxg6

Or 21…fxg6 22.Bxg6 Bg4 23.Bf5.

22.Bxg6 Kh8 23.Bg7+!

The beautiful finale. 23.Bxf7?, on the other hand, would spoil everything. Black
takes over the attack with 23…Rg8! 24.Bxg8 Rxg8, and White can only hope for
a draw.

23…Kxg7 24.Bxf7+! Kh8 25.Qg6 Bf8

Or 25…Bg5 26.Qh5+ Kg7 27.Qxg5+, and mate.

26.Qg8

Mate.

RL 29.8

Almasi
 Sokolov

Wijk aan Zee 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.Be3 Be7 10.c3 0-0 11.Nbd2 Qd7 12.Bc2

The obvious 12.Nxe4 fails to yield anything: 12…dxe4 13.Qxd7 Bxd7 14.e6
exf3 15.exd7 Rad8, with equal play. After 12.Re1 Rad8 13.Bc2 f5 14.exf6 Nxf6
15.Qb1 h6 16.Nh4 Ne5 the position is also roughly equal, according to the
theory.

12…f5 13.exf6 Nxf6 14.Qb1

After 14.Ng5 Black simply plays 14…Bf5.

14…Kh8 15.Ng5 Ng4

This is an important discovery by the Dutch correspondence player Leo Mooren.

15…Bg8 16.Bf5 is good for White.

16.Ngf3

White admits that he was wrong! After 16.Nxh7, 16…Rf5! is good for Black, as
Nh7 is locked in, e.g. 17.Qd1 Nxe3 18.fxe3 g6 19.Bxf5 Bxf5 20.e4 dxe4
21.Nxe4 Qxd1 22.Raxd1 Kxh7; Forsberg-Mooren, correspondence game 1992.
16.Nxe6 Qxe6 17.Re1 Qf7! gives Black excellent chances: 18.Nf3 Qh5 19.Qd1
Nce5 20.Nxe5 Qxh2+ 21.Kf1 Nxe5 22.Qxd5 Ng4 23.Rad1 Bh4 24.Bc5 Bxf2
25.Bxf8 Rxf8, and White resigned, Glaser-Mooren, cr 1987.

16…Qd6 17.Re1

17.h3? is met by 17…Nxe3 18.fxe3 Bxh3!, while 17…Bg5! is a strong reply to

17.Bd4, e.g. 18.h3 Bxd2 19.hxg4 Nxd4 20.cxd4 Bf4.
17…Rxf3!?
Black is going at it hammer and tongs! In the Informator, the black player gave
the text no fewer than two exclamation marks, but this is probably exaggerated
in view of the improvement for White on move 19 found by Christiansen. Safe
and good was 17…Nce5, e.g. 18.Nxe5 Qxe5 19.Nf1 Nxe3 20.Rxe3 Qf6,
possibly followed by …Bc5.

18.Nxf3 Nce5 19.Nd2?!

Sokolov has given the alternative 19.Nxe5 here, with a winning position for
Black after 19…Qxe5 20.g3 (or 20.f4 Qh5 21.h3 Nxe3 22.Rxe3 Bc5 23.Qe1
Bxh3!) 20…Qh5 21.h4 Bxh4! 22.gxh4 Qxh4 23.Bf5 Qh2+ 24.Kf1 Nxe3+
25.Rxe3 Bxf5 26.Qxf5 Qh1+ 27.Ke2 Qxa1.

Less clear, however, is 19.Nd4!? Rf8 20.h3!, and now 20…Nxe3 21.Rxe3 Bg5
22.Re2, or 20…c5 21.hxg4 (21.Nxe6? won’t work in view of 21…Nf3+ 22.gxf3
Qh2+ 23.Kf1 Rxf3 24.hxg4 Bh4 25.Ke2 Rxe3+!, and mate!) 21…cxd4 22.Bxd4
Nxg4 23.g3. Thus an analysis from the American grandmaster Christiansen.

19…Nc4 20.Nf1

After 20.Nf3? Black plays the winning 20…Rf8 21.h3 Ngxe3 22.fxe3 Rxf3,
while 20.g3?, in contrast to Christiansen’s variation, is now wrong: 20…Ngxe3
21.Rxe3 Nxd2.

20…Rf8 21.Bd1

21.g3?! is met by 21…Nge5, while 21.h3?! Ncxe3 22.hxg4 (or 22.fxe3 Bh4!
23.hxg4 Bf2+ 24.Kh1 Bxg4 25.Nh2 Rf6, with winning play) 22…Nxg4 gives
Black a strong, and probably winning, attack.

21…Ncxe3 22.fxe3?

This loses. White’s only chance was 22.Rxe3 Nxe3 23.Nxe3, and Black is better
due to his bishop pair, but the game is still far from over!

22…Rxf1+! 23.Kxf1 Qxh2 24.Bf3 Ne5 25.Qd1

Or 25.Ke2 Nxf3 26.Kxf3 h5!, followed by 27…Bg4.

25…Bh4 26.Rc1 Bg4

White resigned. The big threat is 27…Qh1+ 28.Ke2 Qg2 mate.

RL 29.9

Pedersen

Magomedov

Cappelle la Grande 1998

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.c3 Be7 10.Nbd2 Nc5 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.Qe1

For 12.Re1, see the game Martin del Campo-Alvarez, Havana 1989.

12…Ne6 13.h3 Bh5 14.Nh2 Bg6 15.Bb1

15.Bxg6?! is met by 15…fxg6! 16.Nb3 g5! 17.Be3 0-0, with better play for
Black, Alekhine-Rubinstein, Vilnius 1912!

15…Qd7!? 16.f4 Bxb1 17.Rxb1 g6 18.Ng4

Pedersen gives the variation 18.f5!? Ng7 19.f6 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 Ne6 21.Nb3 Bb6
22.Be3 here, with a slightly better position for White.

18…0-0-0!? 19.Nb3 d4!

Now Black gets counterplay; after other moves White plays Be3 and Rd1.
20.cxd4

Pedersen gives 20.Nh6 an exclamation mark, but after 20…dxc3 21.bxc3 Bf8
22.f5 gxf5 23.Nxf5 he still calls the position unclear.

20…Ncxd4 21.Be3 Nf5 22.Rc1 Qd5

A good alternative was 22…h5!, e.g. 23.Nf6 (23.Nf2 Qd5 is now simply good
for Black) 23…Bxf6 24.exf6 Qd5 25.Rf3!? (after 25.Nc5 Black has a good reply
in 25…Rd6!), with unclear play (Pedersen).

23.Qa5 Kb7 24.Nf6!? Qd3

24…Bxf6?! 25.Nc5+ Nxc5 26.Rxc5 is good for White.

25.Ba7

A nice idea that prevents White from getting into trouble after 25.Bf2 Ne3. At
the same time he introduces a drawing mechanism into the position with
26.Rxc7+ Nxc7 27.Qb6+.

25…Kxa7 26.Rf3

26.Rxc7+ is still perpetual check.

26…Bc5+?!

A slight inaccuracy. Stronger was 26…Qe2, with perpetual check again after
27.Rxc7+ Nxc7 28.Qxc7+ Ka8.

27.Rxc5 Qb1+ 28.Kh2?!

Now it’s a draw by perpetual check after all. After 28.Rc1! Rd1+ 29.Rxd1
Qxd1+ 30.Kh2 White would have been slightly better (Pedersen).

28…Rd1 29.Rxc7+ Nxc7 30.Qxc7+ Ka8 31.Qc6+ Ka7 32.Qc7+ Ka8 33.Qc6+

Draw.

RL 29.12

Arseniev

Zhukhovitsky

Leningrad 1976
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.c3 Be7 10.Bc2 0-0 11.Nbd2 f5 12.exf6

White can also play 12.Nb3.

12…Nxf6 13.Nb3

After 13.Ng5 Black also replies 13…Bg4, e.g. 14.f3 Bc8 15.Re1 Qd6 16.Qe2
Bd7, with excellent play, Kotov-Averbakh, Moscow 1952.

13…Bg4! 14.Qd3 Ne4!? 15.Nbd4 Nxd4 16.Nxd4

Now Black seems to be in trouble. White is threatening both 17.f3 and 17.Nc6.

If Black replies 16…Bd6 (in order to be able to meet 17.f3 with 17…Qh4),
White plays 17.Nxb5.

16…Bd6!

Anyway!

17.Nxb5?

White takes up the gauntlet. But a better option for him was 17.h3 Qh4 18.Nxb5,
followed by the surprising 19.Bg5! to meet 18…Nxf2, with liquidation: 19…
Nxd3 20.Bxh4 axb5 21.Bxd3 Bd7, and the position is equal, Ragozin-Ravinsky,
Moscow 1947.

17…Bxh2+!

So this was the idea. Now Black wins more or less by force.

18.Kxh2 Qh4+ 19.Kg1 Rf5! 20.Bb3 Kh8

Black has to stay on his guard. The immediate 20…Rh5? is bad in view of
21.Qxd5+! Rxd5 22.Bxd5+ Kh8 23.Bxa8, and Black has been stripped bare.
21.f3

Now 21.Qxd5 Rxd5 22.Bxd5 is simply met by 22…Rf8! 23.Bxe4 Be2.

21…Rh5! 22.fxe4 Qh2+ 23.Kf2 Rf8+ 24.Bf4

A last-ditch attempt in hopes of exploiting Black’s back rank. But after 24.Ke1
Qh4+ White has run out of defensive options: 25.g3 Rxf1+ 26.Kxf1 Qh1+.

24…Qxf4+ 25.Ke1 Rh1!

White resigned.

RL 30.2

Khalifman

Kaidanov

Kuibyshev 1986

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Qd3 0-0

Black can also play 10…f6!? at once, e.g. 11.exf6 Qxf6!? 12.Bxd5? (12.Be3)
12…0-0-0 13.Bxe6+ Qxe6 14.Qe2 Rhe8 15.Be3 Nxf2! 16.Rxf2 Qxe3 17.Qxe3
Rd1+ 0-1, Wade-Mardle, Bognor Regis 1960.

11.Nbd2
Another possibility is 11.Be3, e.g. 11…f6 12.exf6 Qxf6 13.Nbd2 (taking on d5
yields Black at least equality: 13.Bxd5 Rad8 14.Bxe6+ Qxe6 15.Qe2 Nxf2!?
16.Kxf2 Rde8 17.Re1 Qd6 18.Qd2 Rxf3+ 19.gxf3 Qxh2+, and perpetual check.
Thus an analysis from Kortchnoi) 13…Bxe3 14.Qxe3 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Rad8
16.Rfe1 Kh8, with roughly equal prospects.

11…f5 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Ng5

13.a4 has also been tried in several games.

13…Ne5 14.Qg3 Qd6 15.Bc2 Bd7

15…Rae8 is good as well.

16.Nb3 Bb6 17.Nd4 Rae8 18.Bf4

At first sight, this pin looks quite dangerous for Black.

18…Nh5!

It is no coincidence that Black can free himself completely by shedding his h-

pawn: all his pieces are aimed at the kingside and are excellently co-ordinated.

19.Bxe5 Rxe5 20.Bxh7+ Kh8 21.Qh4 g6

Locking in the bishop. 21…Qh6 22.Ndf3! Ree8 23.Rae1 is not clear; after 23…
Rxe1 24.Rxe1 Rf4 White saves his queen with 25.Qh3!, as 25…Bxh3 is not
going to do the job in view of mate on e8!

22.f4 Bxd4+

22…Rxg5 was another option: 23.fxg5 Kxh7 24.Rxf8 Qxf8 25.Rf1 Qg7 26.Kh1
(26.g4? Bxd4+) 26…Kg8, and now 27.g4? is bad in view of 27…Bxd4 28.gxh5
Be3! 29.h6 Bc6!, with the threat of 30…d4+, and mate, which cannot be parried
by 30.Rf6 because of the simple 30…Qxf6; after 27.b4!?, however, the position
is unclear. Thus Kaidanov.

23.cxd4 Ref5

23…Rxg5 was still worth considering for Black here: 24.fxg5 Kxh7 25.Rxf8
Qxf8 26.Rf1 Qg7, with unclear play, as 27.g4? is impossible in view of 27…
Qxd4+.

24.g3 Kg7

And 24…Rxg5 remained a possibility even now: 25.fxg5 Kxh7 26.Rxf8 Qxf8
27.Rf1 Qg7.

25.Rae1
25…Nxf4! 26.gxf4 Rxf4 27.Rxf4 Rxf4

Now White faces the task of trying to extricate himself from his troubles, as the
queen is locked in: 28.Qg3 Rg4.

28.Re7+! Kf8

But what now?

29.Re8+!

The beautiful salvation.

29…Kxe8

After 29…Bxe8? White has the trick 30.Qxf4+! Qxf4 31.Ne6+, and wins!

30.Bxg6+! Ke7

30…Qxg6 31.Qxf4 leads to an equal position.

31.Qh7+ Kf6 32.Qh6! Rg4+ 33.Kh1 Qf4

Does White still have a draw?

34.Bh5+ Ke7 35.Qg7+

Yes indeed; it’s still perpetual check!

35…Kd6 36.Qg6+ Ke7 37.Qg7+ Kd6 38.Qg6+

Draw.

RL 30.5
 Napolitano

Sapundzhiev

Correspondence game 1972

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bc2 f5 12.Nb3 Ba7 13.Nbd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4
Bxd4 15.cxd4

15.Qxd4 is another possibility. After 15…c5 16.Qd1 f4 17.f3, 17…Ng3 had

always been regarded as bad in view of 18.hxg3 fxg3 19.Qd3 Bf5 20.Qxf5 Rxf5
21.Bxf5 Qh4 22.Bh3, but according to a recent analysis by the Hungarian
Karolyi, Black can safely play 19…Qh4 (instead of 19…Bf5); after the
liquidation 20.Qxh7+ Qxh7 21.Bxh7+ Kxh7 White picks up the g3 pawn with
22.Bg5 and 23.Bh4, but 22…b4!? guarantees Black sufficient counterplay.

Instead of 16…f4 Black can also play 16… h6: 17.f3 Ng5 18.Be3 Rc8 19.Qd2
a5, with complicated play and roughly equal chances, Short-Timman, San
Lorenzo match 1993.

15…f4 16.f3

The only move; Black was threatening 16…f3.

16…Ng3! 17.Rf2

Possibly a mite cowardly, but certainly safer than taking the knight. 17.hxg3
fxg3 is the so-called Grande Variante: 18.Qd3 Bf5 19.Qxf5 Rxf5 20.Bxf5 Qh4
21.Bh3 Qxd4+ 22.Kh1 Qxe5 23.Bd2
 analysis diagram

With very unclear play, both after 23…c5 and after 23…Qxb2. Despite a good
number of games played, it has never been clearly established which side this
variation really favours; White has superior numbers of pieces, but the black
pawn mass may also make itself felt.

17…Qh4 18.Qd3

The moves 18.Bd2 and 18.Qd2 have also been tried.

18…Rf5!

With the terrible threat 19…Qxh2+ 20.Kxh2 Rh5+, and mate. Less good is 18…
Bf5?! 19.Qc3 Bxc2 20.Rxc2, with good play for White.

19.Bxf4 Rxf4

But not 19…Qxf4? 20.hxg3 Qxg3 21.f4 Qh4 22.g3, and Black has nothing left.

20.hxg3 Qxg3 21.Qxh7+ Kf7 22.Rd1

22.Qh2 Qxh2+ 23.Kxh2 Rxd4 24.f4 Rh8+ 25.Kg3 g6 is good for Black, while
22.Qh5+ is simply met by 22…Ke7.

22…Rh4 23.Qd3 c5!?

23…Rah8 at once is also possible: 24.Kf1 c5 (less good is 24…Rh1+? 25.Ke2

R8h2 26.Rxh1 Rxh1 27.Qc3) 25.Qe3 R8h5, with solid counterplay for the pawn,
Vogel-Kretschmar, correspondence game 1981.

24.dxc5 Rah8 25.Kf1 Rh1+ 26.Ke2 Rxd1 27.Bxd1 Qxe5+ 28.Kd2 Qxb2+
29.Bc2 Qb4+ 30.Qc3 Qf4+ 31.Qe3

After 31.Ke2, 31…d4 is annoying.

31…Rh4! 32.g4!
After 32.Qxf4+ Rxf4 33.Bb3 a5 the endgame slightly favours Black.

32…Qb4+

And a draw was agreed in view of move repetition (33.Qc3 Qf4+). A winning
attempt by Black with 32…Qf6 will stick in his craw after 33.c6.

RL 30.6

Vitkauskas

Baer

Correspondence game 1977

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bc2 Nxf2!?

The Dilworth Variation, one of the most interesting sub-variations of the Open
Ruy Lopez.

12.Rxf2 f6 13.exf6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 Qxf6 15.Kg1

The alternative 15.Nf1 can be seen in the game Grünfeld-Mikhalevski, Tel Aviv
1991.

15…Rae8

An alternative is 15…g5!?. A correspondence game by the originator of this line

went 16.Qe1 g4 17.Qh4 (forcing the exchange of queens) 17…Bf5 18.Qxf6
Rxf6 19.Bxf5 Rxf5 20.Nh4, with balanced chances, Radoslavic-Dilworth, 1979.

16.Nf1

Good for Black is 16.Qf1 Bg4 17.Qd3 Ne5! 18.Qxh7+ Kf7 19.Qh4 Nxf3+
20.Nxf3 Qxh4 21.Nxh4 Re1+; Pupko-Monin, correspondence game 1974.

16…Ne5 17.Be3 Nxf3+ 18.Qxf3 Qxf3 19.gxf3 Rxf3

The liquidation has defused the direct threats against the white king, but Black is
still enjoying the better position.
20.Bf2

White can also try 20.Bd4 Bh3 21.Ng3, but Black has good prospects after both
21…Re6, 21…g6, 21…Ref8 and 21…c6. The same goes for 20.Bc5 Bh3
21.Ng3.

20…Bh3 21.Ng3 g6

21…Ref8 is good, too, e.g. 22.Bd4?! (22.Bc5! is stronger) 22…h5! 23.Bc5 (now
it’s too late!) 23…R8f4 24.Re1 h4 25.Re8+ Kf7 26.Re7+ Kf6 27.Nh5+ Kg5
28.Re5+ (28.Nxf4 Rf1 mate) 28…Kh6, and White resigned, Ledezma Alvarez-
Lascurain, correspondence game 1991.

22.Rd1

22.a4 looks more active, but then Black is fine as well.

22…c6 23.Rd2

After 23.Rd3 Black maintains the pressure with 23…Rf4.

23…Ref8 24.Bd3 h5! 25.Bxg6?

Now White loses. Correct was 25.Bf1, but after 25…Bxf1 26.Nxf1 g5 Black still
has the best chances.

25…h4 26.Nf1

Or 26.Nh5 Re3! 27.Rd1 (27.Bxe3 Rf1 mate) 27…Re2.

26…Kg7 27.Bh5 R3f5 28.Bd1 Rg5+ 29.Ng3

Forced.

29…hxg3 30.hxg3 Rf7

White resigned. He can still struggle a bit, but his chances of success are
virtually zero.
RL 30.6

Grünfeld

Mikhalevski

Tel Aviv 1991

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5
Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bc2 Nxf2 12.Rxf2 f6 13.exf6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2
Qxf6 15.Nf1 Ne5 16.Be3 Rae8

Black’s best option. 16…Ng4+?! 17.Kg1 is no good, and 16…Bg4? is even

worse: 17.Qxd5+ Kh8 18.Qe4 g6 19.Bd4, and White wins. 16…Nxf3?! 17.gxf3
Rf7 18.f4!? is probably good for White as well.

17.Bc5

17.Bd4 Bg4 18.Nd2 Qh4+ 19.Kg1 Nxf3+ 20.Nxf3 Qh5 is also unclear. Black
has good chances.

17…Nxf3 18.gxf3 Rf7 19.Kg2?!

Stronger is 19.Ng3, e.g. 19…Bg4 20.Kg1 Qxf3 21.Qxf3 Rxf3 22.Rf1 Rxf1+
23.Kxf1, with a difficult endgame that may be slightly better for White.

19…Qg5+ 20.Kh1

20.Ng3 is met by 20…h5! 21.Kh1 (after 21.Qc1 Black plays the strong 21…
Qh4!) 21…h4 22.Qd3 Qh6 23.Be3 Qh8 24.Nf1 Bf5 (or 24…Qh5!?), with good
play for Black.

20…d4!
Vacating square d5 for the bishop.

21.Qxd4?

This loses. Correct was 21.Bxd4!, with unclear play after 21…Bd5 22.Nd2 Rxf3
23.Qxf3! (but not 23.Nxf3? Re1+! 24.Qxe1 Bxf3 mate!). Thus an analysis from
Kortchnoi.

21…Rxf3 22.Be4

White’s only chance in view of the threat of 22…Bd5.

22…Rf4 23.Re1

Or 23.Ng3 Rxe4 24.Nxe4 Bd5 25.Re1 Qf5, winning.

23…Rxe4! 24.Rxe4 Bd5 25.Ng3 Bxe4+ 26.Nxe4 Qf5 27.Nd2

Or 27.Ng3 Qf3+, and mate.

27…Re1+ 28.Kg2 Re2+

White resigned. After 29.Kh1 Black decides with 29…Qg5.

 Friso Nijboer

Petroff Defence

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6

RG 1.4

Shabalov

Bhat

Alexandria 1996

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.e5 Ne4 5.Qxd4 d5 6.exd6ep Nxd6 7.Nc3 Nc6
8.Qf4

The best spot for the queen: if Black castles queenside it can move to a4 to
create mating motifs; if he castles kingside it can switch to the h-file.

8…g6

Very solid is 8…Nf5 9.Bb5 Bd6 10.Qe4+ Qe7, and White’s advantage is
minimal.
9.Be3

9.Bd2 is played more often, but I regard the text as more logical, because it
keeps the d-file open. White need not fear the capture on c3, as this makes the
black king unsafe.

9…Bg7 10.0-0-0 0-0 11.h4 Be6?

Far too dangerous; the h-file must remain closed. Akopian played 11…h6, but
got into trouble anyway when Ivanchuk targeted another weakness: 12.Bc5 Be6
13.Bb5 a6 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Bd4 f6 16.Bc5, and White has a lasting advantage
without Black having any activity by way of compensation.

12.h5 Qf6 13.Qh2 Rfe8

It is already too late for counterplay after 13…Nb4 14.Rd4 Nxa2+ 15.Nxa2
Bxa2 16.hxg6 h5 (16…Qxg6 is met by 17.Rg4!, and it is over at once) 17.Qxh5
Qxg6 18.Qh2, and the white attack is unstoppable.

14.hxg6 hxg6 15.Bg5 Qf5

16.Rxd6!

Nice. White conquers square e4 for the knight in order to lend his attack decisive
strength.

16…cxd6 17.Bd3 Qa5 18.Ne4 Nb4 19.Qh7+ Kf8 20.Qh8+ Bxh8 21.Rxh8+

Black resigned.

RG 2.2

Tiviakov

Forintos

Porto San Giorgio 1994

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 Nc6

An amazing idea from Murey: Black wants to keep the white knight from e5. A
simple refutation has not yet been found.

5.Bxe4

An attempt to win a piece with 5.d5 leads to nothing after 5…Nc5 6.dxc6 e4.

5…d5 6.Bxh7
If White was slightly less greedy, 6.Bg5 would be an attractive alternative, as
witness 6…Qd7 (too dangerous is 6…f6 7.Nxe5! dxe4 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Nxg6 hxg6
10.Qxg6+ Kd7 11.Bxf6 Rh6 12.Qxh6 Bxh6 13.Bxd8 Kxd8 14.Na3, and White
has too many pawns; 6…Qd6 is met by 7.dxe5 Qb4+ 8.Nc3 dxe4 9.a3 Qa5
10.Nd4, with a promising position) 7.Bd3 e4 8.0-0, and the black queen was
somewhat awkwardly placed in the stem game Timman-Murey, France 1993.

6…Rxh7 7.dxe5

The pin cannot be avoided, as White is in trouble after 7.Nxe5? Qe7! 8.0-0 Nxe5
9.Re1 Nf3+ 10.gxf3 Be6, with a magnificent position for Black.

7…Bg4 8.Bf4 Qd7 9.Nbd2 Qf5 10.Bg3 0-0-0 11.0-0 Bc5

Black can be happy: at the expense of one pawn he has found active places for
all his pieces, and the open h-file is his great trump.

12.a3 Bb6 13.b4 Qh5!

A good move, increasing the pressure on the h-file and vacating square f5 for the
knight.

14.Re1 Nd4 15.a4 a6 16.Ra3 Nf5 17.Nf1

White accepts a slightly inferior position. And it’s true that the alternative 17.Bf4
is not good: 17…g5 18.Bxg5 Rg8 19.Bf4 Rhg7! (now g2 is suddenly weak)
20.g3 (20.a5 is met by 20…Bxf3 21.Qxf3 Rxg2+ 22.Qxg2 Rxg2+ 23.Kxg2
Qg4+ 24.Bg3 Qxb4, with a large advantage) 20…Qh3 (the threat 21…Nh4 wins
the exchange) 21.Qe2 Nd4 22.Qf1 Nxc2, and Black wins material.

17…Nxg3 18.Nxg3 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 Qxh2+ 20.Kf1 g6 21.Rd3

Fleeing with 21.Ke2 leads to a very inferior endgame after 21…Qh4 22.Rh1
Qc4+ 23.Qd3 Rxh1 24.Qxc4 dxc4 25.Nxh1 Re8 26.f4 f6.

21…Qh4 22.Rxd5 Qc4+ 23.Rd3 Rxd3 24.Qxd3 Qxb4 25.e6 Qf4 26.Re2

Overlooking a detail, but after 26.Qf3 Qxf3 27.gxf3 Rh2! 28.exf7 Rxf2+ 29.Kg1
Rxf3+ 30.Kg2 Rxf7 Black has swallowed all f-pawns.

26…Qxg3! 27.Re3

After 27.fxg3 Rh1+ White is mated.

27…Rh1+ 28.Ke2 Qg4+

White resigned.

RG 2.5
 Smerdon

Solomon

Gold Coast 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxf7

An aggressive-looking move that is actually an attempt to go for a quick draw.

6…Qe7

After 6…Kxf7 7.Qh5+ Ke7 8.Qxd5 (8.Qe2 is correct, after which Black can
force a draw) 8…Ndf6 9.Qe5+ Kf7 10.Bc4+ Kg6 the white attack peters out.

7.Nxh8

For 7.Qe2, see the analysis to Watson-Tolstikh. And after 7.Ne5 Nxe5 8.dxe5
Qxe5 Black has a pleasant lead in development.

7…Nc3+ 8.Kd2 Nxd1 9.Re1 Nxf2

10.Bxh7

White cannot avoid the complications, as after 10.Rxe7+ Bxe7 he cannot take on
h7 in view of 11…Bg5+, and he loses a piece.

10…Ne5!!

New and extremely strong. Known from Zaitsev-Karpov, Leningrad 1966, and
repeated many times is the drawing turn 10…Ne4+ 11.Rxe4 dxe4 12.Bg6+ Kd8
13.Nf7+ Ke8 14.Nd6+.

11.Rxe5 Be6 12.Bg6+

Materially speaking, White is fine. If the white king reaches safety, the game is
in the bag, so the question is: Will it get the time to do so? Another attempt is
12.Bg8, but after 12…Qh4! 13.Bf7+ Kd8 14.Rxe6 Qg5+! 15.Ke2 (15.Ke1 is met
by 15…Nd3+ 16.Ke2 Nxc1+ 17.Kd1 Qxg2!, and Black is winning) 15…Qxg2
16.Nc3 Ne4+ 17.Kd3 Qf1+ 18.Ne2 Be7 19.Rg6, and the white pieces occupy
such artificial positions that Black has to be winning.

12…Kd7 13.Bf7 Ne4+ 14.Ke1

Alternatives lose at once. 14.Kd3 is met by 14…Nc5+! 15.dxc5 Bf5+ 16.Rxf5

Qe4+, and after 14.Ke3 Black can simply cover e6 with 14…Ng5.

14…Qh4+ 15.g3 Bb4+?

A serious blunder. Black could win after the simple 15…Qxh8 16.Bxe6+ Kd6,
and White has several choices – but none that works: 17.Bxd5 (17.Bf4 is met by
17…g5 18.Bxd5 gxf4 19.Bxe4 Bg7, and Black wins. After 17.h3 Re8 18.Bf4 g5
19.Bf5 gxf4 20.Rxe8 Qxd4 Black has a winning attack) 17…Qxh2 18.Bxe4
(White would love to play 18.Bf4, but he is mated: 18…Qf2+ 19.Kd1 Qf1+)
18…Qg1+ 19.Ke2 (19.Kd2 is met by 19…Qxd4+ 20.Ke2 Kxe5, with
destruction) 19…Qxc1, and White is in big trouble.

16.c3 Qxh2

After 16…Qxh8 White wins with 17.Bxe6+ Kd6 18.Bxd5 Qxh2 19.Bf4, and
there’s no mate, since square c2 has become available to the king.

17.Bxe6+ Kc6 18.Bxd5+ Kb6 19.Bxe4

19…Bd6

There is no hope after 19…Qxg3+. White wins with 20.Kd1 Rxh8 21.Nd2, and
after 19…Rxh8 20.Nd2 Qg1+ 21.Nf1 Rf8 22.Bf4 Bd6 23.Ke2 Bxe5 24.dxe5 the
trick with 24…g5 won’t work in view of 25.Be3+, and White wins the queen.

20.Ng6 Qxg3+ 21.Ke2 Bxe5 22.Nxe5 Rh8 23.Be3 Rh2+ 24.Kd3 Qe1 25.d5+
Ka6 26.Kd4! Rxb2 27.Bd3+

Very beautiful was 27.Nd3 Qd1 28.Nd2 Qxa1 29.Nc5+ Kb6 30.Nc4+ Kb5
31.a4+, and Black must resign.

27…b5 28.a4 Qh4+ 29.Be4 b4 30.Nd3 Qf6+ 31.Kc4 Rxb1 32.Nc5+ Ka5
33.Bd4 Qf1+ 34.Bd3 Rxa1 35.cxb4+ Kb6 36.a5+ Rxa5 37.bxa5+ Kxa5
38.Bxf1

Black resigned.

RG 2.6

Watson

Tolstikh

Correspondence game 1994

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Qe2 Nxe5
Black sacrifices a pawn. 6…Qe7 has a good reputation, although Black will have
to parry the amazing attack 7.Nxf7!?, of course: 7…Kxf7 (very bad is 7…Qxf7?,
because White wins a pawn after 8.f3) 8.Qh5+ Ke6? (correct is 8…Kf6 9.0-0
Qf7 10.Qh4+ g5 11.Bxg5+ Kg7, with unclear complications) 9.Bxe4 dxe4
10.d5+ Kd6 11.Bf4+ Ne5 12.Na3!, and Black is already too far up shit creek.

7.Bxe4 dxe4 8.Qxe4 Be6!

With control of square d5. Black is aiming for quick development, after he has
got sufficient compensation for the pawn.

9.Qxe5

The other way to take the pawn is no better. After 9.dxe5 Bd5 10.Qg4 h5 11.Qh3
Qe7 12.f4 Qe6! 13.Qxe6+ fxe6 Black again has fine compensation, e.g. 14.Kf2
g5! 15.Nc3 Bc5+ 16.Be3 Bxe3+ 17.Kxe3 gxf4+ 18.Kxf4 Bxg2, with an equal
endgame.

9…Qd7 10.Be3 Bb4+ 11.c3

11.Nc3 f6 12.Qh5+ Bf7, to prevent the light squares from getting too weak, is
probably wiser.

11…Bd6 12.Qa5

12.Qxg7 will yield White a second pawn, but the open g-file will cause him
problems. 12…0-0-0 is correct, and after 13.Nd2 Black can try the subtle 13…
Qc6, or act at once with 13…Rhg8 14.Qxh7 Rxg2. In both cases Black has
sufficient compensation.

12…Qc6!

Attacking g2 but keeping an eye on the queen on a5, which looks likely to get
into trouble.

13.f3

The innocent 13.0-0? can count on 13…Bd5 14.f3 b6 15.Qa6 Bc4, winning the
queen!
13…Bd5 14.Nd2 0-0 15.0-0 Rfe8
16.Rfe1

White is having no picnic: after 16.Bg5? Re2 17.c4 Bxh2+ 18.Kh1 (or 18.Kxh2
Qd6+ 19.Kh1 Qg3 20.Rg1 Qxg5, with a large advantage) 18…Qg6 19.Qxd5
Bf4! it is resigning time again. A better attempt is 16.Rae1, after which the
pseudo-sacrifice with 16…Bxh2+ (a nice move is 16…a6!, threatening to win
the queen; after 17.c4 Bxc4 18.Rc1 Rxe3 19.Nxc4 Re2 Black is better in view of
his superior pawn structure) 17.Kxh2 Rxe3 18.Rxe3 b6 19.Qa6 Qh6+ 20.Kg1
Qxe3+ 21.Rf2 yields no more than equality.

16…b6 17.Qa6 Bxh2+ 18.Kf2?

Now the attack becomes irresistible. White’s only hope was simplification with
18.Kxh2 Rxe3 19.Nf1 Bc4 20.Qa3 Bxf1 21.Rxe3 Qh6+ 22.Kg1 Qxe3+ 23.Kxf1,
but after 23…Re8 Black still has the initiative.

18…f5 19.g3 Bxg3+ 20.Kxg3 Rxe3 21.Rxe3 f4+ 22.Kf2

22.Kxf4 Qh6+ 23.Kg3 Qxe3 won’t help either.

22…fxe3+ 23.Kxe3 Re8+ 24.Kf2 Qh6

White resigned.

RG 2.7

Nijboer

Van der Sterren

Rotterdam 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxd7 Bxd7 7.0-0 Bd6

7…Qh4 used to be the normal move, but when it turned out that Black can safely
sacrifice a pawn, the text gained in popularity.

8.c4 c6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Qh5

After the often-played 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 0-0 12.Qh5 White also wins a
pawn, which he usually has to return in short order. With accurate play the
balance is preserved.

10…0-0 11.Qxd5 Bc6 12.Qh5 g6 13.Qh3 Ng5

Black has several possibilities: 13…Rc8, 13…Bb4 and 13…Qb6 are all
playable.

14.Qg4
Introduced by Kasparov, who used it to score a nice win over Piket.

14…Ne6 15.Bh6

The importance of this move can be gauged by the play-off rapid game between
Lautier and Gelfand, Las Vegas 1999. Here White played 15.Be3?!, and after
15…h5! 16.Qh3 Bd7! 17.Qf3 Bc6 he fell on his own sword with 18.Qd1 (he
ought to have settled for the draw with 18.Qh3): after 18…Qh4 19.h3 Ng5 20.d5
Nxh3+ 21.gxh3 Qxh3 he was suddenly mated.

15…Re8 16.Nc3 Nxd4

Better than Piket’s 16…Bf4 17.Bxf4 Qxd4 18.Be4 f5 19.Qd1 Qxd1 20.Rfxd1
fxe4 21.Be3, after which White can still boast a slight plus. Against Van der
Sterren one must always be on the lookout for fashionable variations.

17.Rad1 Be5 18.f4 f5 19.Qh3

Spectacular is 19.Bxf5? Qb6! 20.Bxg6 Nf5+ 21.Rf2 Nxh6 22.Qg3 Rf8! 23.fxe5
Qxf2+ 24.Qxf2 Rxf2 25.Kxf2 hxg6, but when all the smoke has cleared, Black is
a piece to the good.

19…Bf6 20.Bg5 Bxg5 21.Bc4+ Kh8 22.fxg5 Qb6 23.Kh1 Qxb2 24.Rxd4 Re3
A nice example of overloading of the white queen. White is in big trouble.

25.Nd1 Qxd4 26.Nxe3 Re8 27.Qh6!!

A great escape. White uses squares f6 and f8 to force a draw.

27…Qxe3 28.Rxf5 Bd5

Not, of course, 28…gxf5?? 29.Qf6+, and Black is mated. If he wins a piece with
28…Qc1+ 29.Rf1 Qxc4 it will be perpetual check after 30.Rf8+ Rxf8 31.Qxf8+
Qg8 32.Qf6+ Qg7 33.Qd8+.

29.Rf8+ Bg8 30.h3 Qe7 31.Rxe8 Qxe8 32.Qh4 Qe5 33.Bxg8 Kxg8 34.Qc4+
Kg7 35.Qa4 Qxg5 36.Qxa7 Qc1+ 37.Kh2 Qf4+ 38.Kh1

Draw.

RG 2.8

Dolmatov

Makarichev

Palma de Mallorca 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxd7 Bxd7 7.0-0 Qh4

A rather primitive-looking but surprisingly dangerous move. Black wants to

castle queenside and attack the enemy king as quickly as possible.

8.c4 0-0-0 9.c5 g5

The situation is becoming clear: White dominates on the queenside and has good
winning chances, provided he manages to repel the black king attack.

10.f3 Nf6 11.Be3 Rg8 12.Nc3

An alternative is 12.Qe1 Re8 13.Nd2 Qh5 14.Qf2 g4 15.Rae1, with a roughly

equal position.

12…g4

After 12…Re8 13.g3 Qh3 14.Re1 g4 15.f4 the initial danger is past and White
can launch his own king attack.

13.Qe1?

Already the decisive mistake; correct was 13.g3 Qh3 14.f4 Nh5 15.Qe1 Nf6
16.b4, with an equal position. Black should not be too keen here, as the energetic
16…h5? fails to 17.Nd1, and White wins the queen, a frequent theme in this
variation.

13…g3 14.hxg3 Rxg3 15.Qd2

White has two more defensive options, neither of which will work: 15.Ne2 Bd6!
16.Qf2 (after the capture on d6 Black plays 16.cxd6 Rxg2+ 17.Kxg2 Rg8+
18.Qg3 Rxg3+ 19.Nxg3 Bh3+ 20.Kf2 Bxf1 21.Bxf1 Nh5, and wins material)
16…Bh3 17.Bf5+ (if White takes the bishop with 17.cxd6, Black wins with
17…Rxg2+ 18.Qxg2 Bxg2 19.Bf5+ Nd7 20.Kxg2 Rg8+) 17…Bxf5 18.cxd6
Nh5! 19.Bf4 Nxf4 20.Nxg3 Nh3+ 21.gxh3 Rg8, and the attack strikes home. The
other defence, with 15.Bf2, loses quickly after 15…Rxg2+ 16.Kxg2 Qh3+
17.Kg1 Bd6.

15…Bxc5! 16.dxc5 Rdg8 17.Rfd1 d4 18.c6

18.Bxd4 is met by the devastating 18…Qxd4+ 19.Kf1 Rxf3+!.

18…dxe3 19.cxd7+ Kd8

White resigned, because he will be mated after 20.Qe2 Rxg2+ 21.Qxg2 Qf2+
22.Kh1 Qxg2+.

RG 3.1

Brenninkmeijer

Hoeksema

Groningen 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.d4 Qe8

The Dutch city of Groningen is in the habit of organising an annual gambit

tournament, which in 1995 was dedicated to the Cochrane Gambit. The text was
often played in this tournament, and it is true that White faces an uphill struggle.

6.Nc3

Hoeksema-Reinderman (Groningen 1995) saw 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.c3 d5 8.e5 Nxe5

9.dxe5 Qxe5+ 10.Qe2 Qxe2+, after which Black’s advantage is limited, but this
can never be the aim of a gambit player, of course.

6…d5 7.e5 Bb4! 8.Bd3

Another possibility was 8.Qf3 Kg8 9.a3 (after 9.Bd3 Ne4 10.Bxe4 dxe4 11.Qxe4
Qc6 Black is slightly better) 9…Bxc3+ 10.Qxc3 Nc6 11.Be2 Nd7 12.Be3 Nb6
13.0-0-0 h5, and White still had long-term compensation in Brenninkmeijer-
Reinderman (Groningen 1995).
8…Ne4 9.Bxe4 dxe4 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 h5?!

In the tournament book, Brenninkmeijer indicates 11…Bf5! as the best move:

12.f3 (after 12.f4 h5 – Black must prevent g4! – 13.Qe2 Qe6 14.c4 c6 the white
attack has been contained; inserting 12.Rb1 b6 does nothing for White) 12…e3
13.g4 Bg6 14.f4 Be4 15.Bxe3 Qc6 16.Qd2, and Black has solid control of the
dark squares.
12.f3 e3

The f-file must remain closed: after 12…exf3 13.Qxf3+ White launches a
dangerous blitz attack.

13.Qd3!

Now that White has prevented Bf5, the attack gathers pace.

13…c6 14.c4 Qe6 15.Bb2?!

Better is 15.Bxe3! Qf5 16.Qb3 Nd7 17.Rad1 Rd8 18.f4 Nb6 19.d5 cxd5
20.cxd5, with a large advantage for White.

15…Qf5?

Black misses a fine chance: 15…Qg6! 16.Qxe3 (now 16.Qb3? fails to 16…Bh3
17.g3 h4 18.g4 Nd7 19.Rfe1 Bxg4 20.fxg4 Qxg4+, and he is mated) 16…Qxc2
17.Rfc1! (the advance 17.e6+ yields nothing after 17…Bxe6 18.d5 cxd5 19.cxd5
Bd7 20.Qe5 Qg6 21.Rfe1 Rf8) 17…Qxb2 18.Rab1 Qxa2 19.Ra1 and Black is
best advised to settle for a draw.

16.Qb3 Nd7 17.Rfe1 Nb6 18.d5

White has just about everything he had dreamt of: central control, three pawns
for the piece and dangerous piece play, according to Brenninkmeijer.

18…Rd8 19.Rad1 Qf4 20.e6+ Ke8

After 20…Kg8 White would have played 21.Rd4!, but now it’s curtains.

21.Qd3! Bxe6 22.Rxe3 Kf8 23.Rxe6

Black resigned.

RG 3.1
 Reinderman

Bosboom

Groningen 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7

It is great, of course, to be able to take on f7 so quickly, but the Cochrane

Gambit still has a dodgy reputation. It certainly is a good surprise weapon,
though.

4…Kxf7 5.Bc4+

An alternative here is 5.d4, and 5.Nc3 is also a possibility: in Topalov-Kramnik,

Linares 1999, Black played 5…c5 6.Bc4+ Be6 7.Bxe6+ Kxe6 8.d4, with an
unclear position.

5…d5!

Giving a third pawn in exchange for activity, which is why this move is to be
preferred to 5…Be6 6.Bxe6+ Kxe6, after which the king is placed slightly
awkwardly.

6.exd5 Bd6 7.0-0 Rf8 8.d4 Kg8 9.h3 Bf5 10.Bb3 b5!

A very subtle move. White definitely wants to play c4-c5, but he cannot allow
Black to take on c4 with the pawn, destroying his pawn structure. So the rest is
forced.

11.a4 bxa4 12.Rxa4 Qe8 13.Nd2 Qg6 14.Kh1 Bg4! 15.Nf3

After 15.f3 the point of 10…b5 would become clear: Black gains a tempo by
attacking the rook: 15…Bd7 16.Ra2 Qg3 17.f4 Bxf4, with a winning position.

15…Qh5 16.Kg1 Nbd7 17.Re1

Since White has to play 18.Re1 after 17.hxg4? Nxg4 anyway, he might as well
start now.

17…Kh8 18.hxg4

Logical is 18.c4?, but after 18…Bxh3 19.gxh3 Qxh3 20.Ne5 Bxe5 21.dxe5 Ng4
White cannot take on g4, because the c-pawn is blocking the rook on a4!

18…Nxg4 19.Re4

Slightly more stubborn is 19.g3 Qh3 20.Qe2 Rf5, with clear intentions along the
h-file: 21.Qf1 Qxf1+ 22.Rxf1 Rxf3 23.Kg2 Raf8 (destroying the white structure
with 23…Rxb3 24.cxb3 is certainly a possibility) 24.Bf4 Bxf4 25.Kxf3 Nh2+
26.Ke2 Bxg3 27.Rfa1 Rxf2+ 28.Kd3 h5, and the black h-pawn is very quick.

19…Bh2+ 20.Kf1 Ndf6 21.Re6 Bg3!

Black is targeting f2.

22.Be3

After 22.fxg3 White loses his queen with 22…Qh1+ 23.Ke2 Qxg2+ 24.Kd3
Nf2+.

22…Nxe3+ 23.fxe3 Ng4 24.Ke2 Rxf3! 25.Rxa7

A desperado.

25…Rff8

After 25…Rxa7? 26.gxf3 Nf6 White would gain a new lease of life. Now he is
mated in really beautiful style.

26.Qa1 Rxa7 27.Qxa7 Qh1 28.Kd3 Qf1+ 29.Kc3 Be1

Mate.

RG 3.2

Balashov

Maciejewski

Miedzybrodzie 1991
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.c4

White has many ways of wrong-footing players of the Petroff. The idea of
postponing d4 is that it makes the normal move d6-d5 less good, which gives
White a few different options from the main line later in the game.

5…c6

Not the most common of moves, as the d6 pawn is now slightly weakened. After
5…d5 6.Nc3 Nxc3 (Black can play 6…Nf6 7.cxd5 Nxd5, but normally speaking
he will try to keep the knight on e4 for as long as possible) 7.dxc3 Be6 8.Nd4
Qd7 9.Nxe6 Qxe6+ 10.Be3 dxc4 11.Qa4+ White has the bishop pair and the
initiative. After 5…Nc6 6.Nc3 Nxc3 7.dxc3 a position arises in which White has
good control over the centre, but Black hasn’t a single weakness. Another
possibility is 5…Be7, after which Black has the extra possibility 7…Ng5 to
swap some pieces after 6.d4 0-0 7.Bd3, so that his lack of space won’t hamper
him.

6.Nc3 Bf5

After 6…Nxc3 7.dxc3 Be7 8.Bf4 White is slightly better in view of the weak
pawn on d6.

7.Bd3 Nxc3

7…Ng3!? is also possible, and now Black must take back on f5 after 8.Bxf5 and
certainly should not take the h1 rook as well, as the knight will sooner or later be
lost.

8.dxc3 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0

11.Nd4!?

There is something to be said for 11.Bf4 Nd7 12.Rad1, with pleasant pressure on
d6.

11…d5?

Black must be careful. 11…g6?!, with the idea of keeping the knight from f5, for
example, is less good in view of 12.Bh6 Re8 13.Nf5 Nd7 14.Qg3 Ne5 15.c5 Qd7
16.Nxd6 Bxd6 17.Rad1 Nc4 18.cxd6, and White has a dangerous passed pawn.
Far better is 11…Nd7 12.Nf5 Ne5 13.Qg3 Bf6 14.Rd1 Qd7 and now e.g.
15.Qh3!?, with unclear complications.

12.Nf5 dxc4 13.Qg3! Bf6 14.Bh6 g6 15.Rad1 Qa5 16.Qd6 Nd7 17.Ne7+ Bxe7
18.Qxe7 Nc5 19.Rd6

A beautiful final move. The knight cannot go to e6 and White is threatening

20.Qf6, with mate on g7.

Black resigned.

RG 3.2

Degraeve

Koch

France 2001
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bd3
As the Petroff Defence develops into one of the best defences against e2-e4, its
sub-variations are getting more and more attention. Top player Morozevich has
popularised this particular one. At first sight, 5.Bd3 looks like a beginner’s
move, as we all know that you should first advance the d2 pawn. In the main line
it is often not so easy to chase the knight away from e4, and now it is confronted
at once. After 5…Nc5 White plays 6.Be2, after which he can play d2-d4 with
tempo. If Black goes 5…Nf6, White plays along the lines of h2-h3, c2-c3, 0-0,
Bd3-c2 and d2-d4, after which symmetrical patterns arise that look slightly more
pleasant for White.

5…d5 6.Qe2 Qe7 7.0-0 Nd6 8.Qd1

If he swaps queens, White can forget about an advantage, which is why he

departs, only to return again some time later.

8…Qd8 9.Re1+ Be7 10.Nc3 c6 11.Qe2

To prevent Black from castling kingside for as long as possible.

11…Nd7 12.b3

A more common move here is 12.b4, which keeps the knight from c5; a possible
continuation is 12…Nf8 13.b5 Ne6 14.bxc6 bxc6 15.Ne5 Qc7, with interesting
complications.

12…Nc5 13.Qe5 Ne6

Taking on d3 yields Black too little compensation after 13…Nxd3 14.Qxg7

Nxe1 15.Qxh8+ Kd7 16.Qxd8+ Kxd8 17.Nxe1.

14.Bb2 Bf6 15.Qg3 0-0 16.Ba3 Be7 17.Re5 f5

Black already had to reckon with the bishop sacrifice on h7. The other
possibility, 17…f6?!, is dubious: 18.Rxe6! (nice things on h7 won’t work) 18…
Bxe6 19.Re1 Ne4 (better is 19…Qd7 20.Nd4 Bf7 21.Rxe7 Qxe7 22.Bxd6 Qe1+
23.Bf1 Rfe8 24.Bf4, after which White has three pieces for two rooks, which is
usually not bad) 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Nxe4 dxe4 22.Rxe4, and White wins in view
of the double threat 23.Rxe6 and 23.Nd4.
18.Rae1
18…Rf6?

There is nothing wrong with 18…Ne4 19.Nxe4 fxe4 (19…Bxa3 is also possible,
although no better: 20.Neg5 Nxg5 (after 20…Bd6? White gets a dangerous
initiative with 21.Nxh7! Bxe5 22.Qxe5) 21.Qxg5 Qxg5 22.Nxg5 Bd6 23.R5e2,
with an equal position) 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Ng5 Qf6 22.Nxe6 Bxe6 23.Be2, with a
roughly equal position.

19.Nd4 Ne4 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Nxf5 Rxf5 22.Nxe4 dxe4?

An error of assessment. 22…Rxe5 23.Qxe5 dxe4 24.Qxe4 g6 25.Bc4 Kf7

26.Qf4+ Qf6 27.Qh6 b5 28.Qxh7+ Kf8 yields Black better prospects, but with
three pawns for the piece and some chances against the black king, White can be
happy enough.

23.Rxf5 exd3 24.Qxd3 Bd7 25.Rfe5 Rf8 26.Qe3 Rf6 27.Qxa7 Qd6 28.Qe3
Nf4 29.Re4 Rf7 30.Qd4 Qh6 31.Qc4 Qf6

And Black falls for it. 31…Nd5 is correct, although it will change little – White
only has to swap the major pieces, leaving a technically winning position.

32.Re8+

Black resigned.

RG 3.5

Khalifman

Atalik
Halkidiki 2002

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3

A real lover of the Petroff would probably play 5…Nf6.

6.dxc3

An interesting alternative for all those well-trodden roads. White is aiming for
rapid development and can often count on opposite castling, which leads to
sharp positions in which the doubled c-pawns have a solid defensive function.
He will normally start the attack with a pawn storm on the kingside.

6…Be7 7.Bf4

An important subtlety that keeps the black knight from e5.

7…Nd7 8.Qd2 Nc5 9.0-0-0 Bg4

Normal is 9…0-0, after which 10.Nd4 (the latest finesse is 10.Be3: White waits
for Black to develop, and once a bishop appears on e6, the knight is ideally
placed on d4, where it cannot be swapped) 10…Ne6 11.Be3 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Bf5
still leads to the boring positions that many players dread.

10.Be2 0-0 11.h3 Bh5 12.g4 Bg6 13.h4

Black has played into White’s hands. The pawn march has started and soon files
will be opened for the white major pieces.

13…Re8 14.h5 Be4 15.Rhg1 Ne6 16.Be3 c5 17.g5 d5 18.g6! hxg6 19.hxg6
19…fxg6

Another defence is 19…Bxg6, after which White must play energetically to get
an advantage. This is minimal after, for example, 20.Ne5 (nice is 20.Bb5! Rf8
21.Ne5 Bh5 (with no rook on the e-file, 21…d4 is bad in view of 22.Nxg6 dxe3
23.Qxe3 Bg5 24.f4) 22.f3! a6 (the most stubborn defence with 22…Qd6 23.Qh2
f6 24.Qxh5 Qxe5 25.Qxe5 fxe5 26.Rxd5 Rxf3 27.Rxe5 Rxe3 28.Rxe3 Bg5
29.Rxg5 Nxg5 30.Re5 Nf7 31.Rxc5 leads to a winning endgame) 23.Bd7! Bxf3
24.Bxe6! Bxd1 (after 24…fxe6 an attack along the g-file also wins: 25.Bh6 Bf6
26.Bxg7 Bxg7 27.Rxg7+ Kxg7 28.Rg1+ Kh7 29.Qh2+, and Black will soon be
mated) 25.Bh6, and the white attack is too strong) 20…d4 21.cxd4 cxd4
22.Nxg6 dxe3 23.Nxe7+ Qxe7 24.Qxe3 Qc5! 25.Qg3 Qg5+.

20.Ne5 Bf6 21.Ng4 d4

Too simple. 21…Qa5 is a better attempt, after which White will have to play
very accurately: 22.Kb1 d4 23.Bc4 dxe3 (annoying is 23…Qa4! 24.b3! dxe3
25.Qxe3 Qc6 26.Nxf6+ gxf6 27.Qh6 Qc7 (after 27…Re7 White can already take
on g6: 28.Rxg6+ Bxg6 29.Qxg6+ Rg7 30.Qxf6, with a large advantage) 28.Qh3!
Qf7 29.f3 Bc6 30.Rd6, and the white attack on e6 and g6 strikes home) 24.Qxe3
Bf5 25.Nxf6+ gxf6 26.Rd7 Rad8 27.Bxe6+ Rxe6 28.Rxg6+ Kf8 29.Rg8+!!
Kxg8 30.Qg3+, and mate follows.

22.Bc4! dxc3 23.Qe2 Qb6 24.Nxf6+ gxf6 25.bxc3 Qc7 26.Qg4 Qe5 27.Rd5!

A beautiful killer move; since the black bishop has to cover g6, the rest is forced.

27…Qxc3 28.Qxe4 Qa1+ 29.Kd2 Qxg1 30.Rd7

Black resigned. The knight on e6 can no longer be defended.

RG 4.4

Nadanian
 Sharbatov

Correspondence game 1993

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 Bg4 8.c4
Nf6

Black cannot yet take the pawn. 8…Nxd4?, for example, loses after 9.Bxe4 dxe4
10.Qxd4, while after 8…Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Nxd4 10.Qe3 Nf5 11.Qe1! Ne7 12.cxd5
Nd6 White has a large advantage.

9.Nc3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Nxd4 11.Qh3

Also possible is 11.Qe3+ Ne6 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Be4 Qb5 15.a4
Qa6 16.Rd1, with pressure for the pawn.

11…Ne6?!

Better is 11…dxc4 12.Bxc4 Be7 13.Bg5 Qc8 14.Qd3 Ne6 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Nd5
Bd8 17.f4 c6 18.f5 cxd5 19.Bb5+ Kf8 20.fxe6 Qxe6 21.Rae1, and White has the
initiative.

If Black develops with 11…Be7, White goes 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.Be3, with a big
lead in development.

12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.Bg6!?

Aesthetically correct, yet the simple 13.Bb5+ c6 14.Rd1 cxb5 15.Rxd5 was
better, e.g. 15…Qc7 16.Nxb5 Qc6 17.Qf5! Bc5 (after 17…g6 18.Qe5 Bg7
19.Nd6+ Kf8 20.Bh6! Black will not be able to castle) 18.Be3, and White wins.
13…Qd7

All alternatives are less good: 13…fxg6? 14.Qxe6+ Ne7 15.Rd1 Qc8 16.Qb3
quickly leads to the slaughter, and 13…Ndf4? 14.Bxf4 Nxf4 15.Qe3+ Be7
16.Rad1 Qc8 17.Bxf7+ Kxf7 18.Qxf4+ can’t stand the test either. The exchange
sacrifice with 13…hxg6?! is the most interesting option, but after 14.Qxh8 Nxc3
15.bxc3 Qd3 White has many good possibilities, e.g. 16.Qh4, to prevent Black
from castling queenside (developing with 16.Be3 or 16.Ba3 is a good option as
well).

14.Re1 0-0-0?

Now Black loses the thread. There is nothing wrong with 14…fxg6: after
15.Qxe6+ (White would prefer to keep the queens on the board, but after
15.Rxe6+ Kf7 16.Nxd5 Qxd5 17.Re1 Bb4 18.Rf1 he has too little compensation)
15…Qxe6 16.Rxe6+ Kf7 17.Nxd5 c6 18.Nf4 g5 there is little to fear.

15.Nxd5 hxg6

After 15…fxg6 16.Rxe6 Qxd5 White wins with 17.Bg5!.

16.Qxh8 Bb4?

Allowing White to finish the game in style. After the correct 16…Qxd5 17.Qh4
White still faces an uphill struggle trying to convert his material plus.

17.Qxd8+! Qxd8 18.Nxb4 a5 19.Nc2 Qd3 20.Na3 b5 21.Be3 b4 22.Rad1 Qa6

23.Nc2

Black resigned.

RG 4.9

Shakarov
 Rozentalis

Correspondence game 1986

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 c6
9.Qc2

Another way to put pressure on e4, while at the same time preventing the piece
swap. Black will have to decide quickly what set-up he wants to go for.

9…Na6 10.a3 Bg4

Very popular is 10…f5 11.Nc3 Nc7 12.Ne2, and the black position is very solid.
Yet White is slightly better, because he has play on the queenside and can chase
away the annoying knight on e4 after Ne5, followed by f3.

11.c5

It is important that 11.Bxe4 dxe4 12.Qxe4 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Qh4 14.h3 Qxd4 is
good for Black. After 11.Ne5 Bxe5 12.dxe5 Nac5 13.f3 Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Nc5
15.Qd4 Nb3 16.Qxg4 Nxa1 17.Bh6 g6 White can choose between 18.Bxf8 Qxf8
(which wins back the material but yields an equal position) and 18.Nc3, as
Shirov played against Leko, with dangerous chances. This must be regarded as
the critical variation after 10…Bg4.

11…Bc7 12.Ne5 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Naxc5

This aggressive move probably gave Black little joy, as it initiates a series of
forced moves that gives White good winning chances. The quiet 13…Nexc5 is
quite playable, as witness Timman-Salov, Saint John 1988; after 14.Bxh7+ Kh8
15.b4 Qh4! 16.Bd3 Nxd3 17.Qxd3 Nc7 Black could be happy with the result of
the opening.
14.f3

Clearly less good is 14.Bxe4 Nxe4, and now 15.f3. After 15…Qb6+ 16.Kh1
Qb5! 17.Re1 (safer is 17.Kg1) 17…Qd3 18.Re2 Nc5! 19.fxg4 Qxc2 20.Rxc2
Nb3 21.Ra2 Rae8 22.Kg1 Rxe5 23.Kf2 Rfe8, and Black has two pawns for the
piece and a strong initiative: he is better.

14…Qb6 15.Be3 d4
Black’s idea; now he doesn’t lose a piece. But the combination is not finished
yet.

16.Bxd4 Rfd8

If Black plays 16…Rad8, the same position arises with the rook on f8. But this is
worse, as the rook on the f-file is pinned after Bg6, which also threatens mate.

17.Bxe4 Rxd4 18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.fxg4 Nb3 20.Kh1! Nxa1 21.Qf5 c5?

Here Black may be able to save the game with 21…Qa6!. After 22.Nc3 (22.Qxf7
Kxh7 is no more than a draw) 22…Qc4 (to cover f7 and control the fourth rank)
23.Rxa1 (after 23.h3 Re8 24.Kh2 Rxe5 25.Qxe5 Qxf1 26.Qxd4 Kxh7 it also
seems as if the danger has passed) 23…Rf4 24.Qd3 g6 White is not better.

22.Qxf7! Kxh7 23.e6 Rd5

This loses quickly, since the knight is also on its way. After 23…Qb5 24.Qf5+
Kg8 (24…g6 is met by 25.Qf7+ Kh6 26.Qf6 Qe8 27.Nc3 Rxg4 28.Rxa1, and
White has a large advantage) 25.Nc3 Qe8 26.Rxa1 White, with two pawns, good
pieces and potential attacking chances, is better.

24.Nc3 Re5 25.Ne4! Kh8

25…Rxe4 is met by 26.Qf5+ Kg8 27.Qxe4, winning; and after 25…Qxb2

26.Nf6+ Kh6 (26…Kh8 is met by 27.e7, after which square f8 is available for
mating Black) White wins with 27.h4.

26.Ng5

Black resigned. After 26…Rxg5 27.Rf3 Qb3 28.Rxb3 Nxb3 29.e7 Re5 30.Qf8+
Kh7 31.h3 White has won too much material, and after 26…Rxe6 he is mated
with 27.Qf8+ Rxf8 28.Rxf8+.

RG 4.10
 Sokolov

Oll

Odessa 1989

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 c6
9.Nc3 Nxc3 10.bxc3 dxc4

Black must not forget to take on c4, as 10…Bg4?! 11.c5 Bc7 12.Re1 will already
leave him with an awkward position.

11.Bxc4 Bg4 12.Qd3

A logical choice: White gets out of the pin and is secretly eyeing h7. Other
possibilities are 12.Re1, 12.Rb1 and 12.Be2.

12…Nd7

After 12…Bh5 (to meet 13.Ng5 with 13…Bg6) White plays 13.Bg5 Qc7
14.Rae1 Nd7 (after 14…Bxf3 15.Qxf3 Bxh2+ 16.Kh1 Bd6 17.Re4 White has
dangerous attacking chances) 15.Be7, and now White has a small but lasting
advantage in view of his strong centre and well-placed pieces.

13.Ng5 Nf6 14.h3 Bh5!

After the alternative 14…Bd7 White is slightly better.

15.f4 h6 16.g4

If White retreats with 16.Nf3, Black plays 16…Bxf3 and after 17.Qxf3 the
position is roughly equal, because the weakness of square e4 cancels out the
bishop pair.

16…hxg5 17.fxg5 b5 18.Bb3 Nxg4 19.hxg4

19…Qd7!

As far as I am concerned, there is no need to consign 19…Bxg4?! to the bin in

any hurry: 20.g6 (another possibility is 20.Qe4 Bh3 21.g6 Bxf1? (after the
sneaky intermediate check 21…Bh2+! 22.Kxh2 Bxf1 the situation is anything
but clear), and now White wins with the beautiful 22.Qh1!) 20…Be6 21.Rxf7
(21.gxf7+ Bxf7 22.Rxf7 Rxf7 23.Qg6 Qf6 24.Bxf7+ Qxf7 25.Qxd6, winning a
piece, seems simplest, but after 25…Rf8 26.Be3 Qf3 White no longer even has a
draw. White’s best may be 21.Bxe6 fxe6 22.Rxf8+ Qxf8 23.Qh3 Qf5 24.Qh7+
Kf8 25.Qh8+ Ke7 26.Qxg7+ Kd8 27.Bh6, but it will probably still be a draw by
perpetual check) 21…Bxb3 (after 21…Qe8? White has the beautiful 22.Qh3!
Bxh3 (after 22…Rxf7 it will soon be finished as well: 23.Qh7+ Kf8 24.Bg5)
23.Rf5+!, with interposition and a quick mate on h5) 22.Rxf8+ Qxf8 23.axb3
Qe7, with a position that is hard to assess.

20.gxh5

In the game Nunn-Salov, Brussels 1988, White played 20.Qf5, but after 20…
Bxg4 21.Qxd7 Bxd7 22.Rxf7 Rxf7 23.g6 Be8 Black had nothing to fear.

20…Qg4+ 21.Kf2 Rae8 22.Rg1 Qh4+ 23.Kg2 Qh2+

Accuracy is required. Bad is 23…c5? 24.Rh1!, and Black could resign, Short-
Hübner, Tilburg 1988. After 24…Qg4+ 25.Kf1 c4 26.Bd1! Re1+ 27.Kxe1 Qg2
28.Qe2! Qxh1+ 29.Kd2 he has nothing left. After 23…Qxh5? 24.Kf1 Qh2
25.Bd2 Black is also finished, and after 23…Re4? 24.Qf3!, as indicated by
Short, he is a goner as well.

24.Kf1 Bf4! 25.Qf3!

Bad is 25.Bxf4? Qxf4+ 26.Kg2 Re3.

25…Re1+! 26.Kxe1 Qxg1+ 27.Ke2 Bxc1 28.Rxc1!

After 28.Kd3? Qxg5 Black is better.

28…Qxc1 29.g6 Re8+ 30.Kd3 Qb1+

After 30…Re7 31.gxf7+ Kf8 32.Qh3 Qb1+ 33.Bc2 Qxa2 34.Qc8+ Kxf7
35.Qf5+ White has perpetual check.

31.Kd2 Qe1+ 32.Kd3 Qb1+ 33.Kd2

Draw.

RG 4.12

Ivanchuk

Bareev

Linares 1993

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Bd6

The Petroff Defence suffers from the unjustified reputation that it always leads to
boring positions.This variation, introduced by Marshall, usually leads to a fierce
tactical fight.

7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 c6 9.cxd5

9.Qc2 is the big fashion these days.

9…cxd5 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bg4 12.Rb1 b6

12…Nd7 has often been played of late years, possibly in view of the promising
exchange sacrifice White is now going to make.
13.Rb5 Bc7 14.h3 a6

14…Bh5 is met by 15.c4, and the pressure grows; 14…Bxf3 is out of the
question, as White already wins a pawn after 15.Qxf3.

15.hxg4 axb5 16.Qc2 g6

Too risky is 16…h6?: after 17.g5 hxg5 18.Bxg5 Qd6 19.Re1 (to grab square e6)
19…Nc6 White strikes with 20.Bh7+ Kh8 21.Qf5!, with the terrible threat of
22.Qh3, and mate. White has a large advantage.

17.Bxb5
White has two beautiful bishops, a pawn for the exchange and control of most of
the board. Enough reason for me to assume that he is better.

17…Qd6 18.g3 Ra7?

This looks artificial and leads to absolutely nothing in the game. It seems more
logical to me to look for counterplay with f5, although 18…f5 at once is not
good after 19.Bf4 Qd8 20.Bg5 Qd6 21.Qe2 fxg4 22.Be7 gxf3 23.Qe3, and Black
suddenly loses his queen. Preparation with 18…Nc6 19.Kg2, and now 19…f5
20.Bf4 Qd7 21.g5 Bxf4 22.gxf4, leads to a roughly equal position.

19.Re1 Nd7 20.g5 Rd8

Black is doomed to watch passively how White slowly reinforces his position.
20…f6 loses, as after 21.Bf4 Qa3 22.Bxd7 Bxf4 White has the intermediate
check on e6, winning a piece.

21.a4! Nb8

Now the point of 21.a4 is revealed: Black wanted to take his knight to e6, but
after 21…Nf8 22.Qa2 he loses his queen.

22.Nh2 Qf8

The active 22…f5 is still not possible: 23.gxf6ep Qxf6 24.Ng4 Qf3 25.Bg5 Rf8
26.Qe2 Qxe2 27.Rxe2 yields a winning position.

23.Ng4 Bd6 24.Kg2 Kh8 25.Rh1 Qg7 26.Nf6 h5 27.Qd1

Total destruction. Black cannot move a muscle and will now be mated.

Black resigned.

RG 4.12
 Kudrin

Machado

Thessaloniki 1988

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 c6
9.Nc3 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bg4 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.Rb1 Nd7 13.h3 Bh5 14.Rb5

Few people feel like taking the b7 pawn, as the rook will have to sit there for a
long time: after 14.Rxb7 Nb6 15.Ba6 Qe8 16.Qd3 Bg6 17.Qb5 Qxb5 18.Bxb5
Bf5! 19.Re1 Bc8 20.Rbe7 Bxe7 21.Rxe7 Bf5 Black has solved his problems.

14…Nb6 15.c4 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 dxc4 17.Bc2

A well-known tabyia position. White has very dangerous attacking chances in
the short term and good compensation in the shape of two bishops and heavy
pressure on pawn b7 in the long term.

17…Rb8?!

Passive. After having been slaughtered many times, Black found the best plan:
17…Qd7 18.a4 g6! in order to get rid of Bxh7 once and for all. Despite frantic
efforts on the part of the chess elite, White has not managed to prove an
advantage: 19.Be3 (after 19.Bd2 Black returns his plus pawn with 19…c3! to get
active play along the c-file) 19…Rac8 20.Rfb1 c3! (the knight gets access to an
important square) 21.a5 Nc4 22.Rxb7 Qe6, with a balanced position.

18.a4

A good alternative is 18.Bd2, followed by Rfb1 and a4-a5 to capture the pawn
on b7.

18…a6 19.Bg5 Qc7

No good is 19…f6?. After 20.Qh5 h6 21.Bxh6 axb5 22.Bxg7 f5 23.Qh8+ Kf7

24.Qh7! White will win heaps of material.

20.Bxh7+

The other attacking attempt, 20.Bf6?!, is successful after 20…axb5? (the sober
20…g6! is correct – after 21.Rh5 Bh2+ 22.Kh1 Qf4 Black is very good)
21.Bxh7+!, after which White forces mate.

20…Kxh7 21.Qh5+ Kg8 22.Bf6! Bh2+ 23.Kh1 Qd6

After 23…gxf6 it is mate in two: 24.Qg4+ Kh7 25.Rh5+ mate. Black can save
himself with 23…Qf4!, which covers the vital square g5, leaving White no time
to cut off the e-file: 24.Bxg7 Kxg7 25.Rg5+ Kf6 26.Qh6+ Ke7 27.Re5+ Kd7
28.Qxb6 Rfe8!, and here I spent some time looking at attacking attempts like
29.Rd5+ (29.Rfe1 Rxe5 30.dxe5 Ke8 31.e6; 29.Rd1!?) 29…Ke7 30.Qc5+ Kf6
31.g4, but they all ended in perpetual check or a better position for Black.
24.Bxg7 Kxg7 25.Rg5+ Kf6 26.Re1! Qe6 27.Rxe6+ fxe6 28.Rg6+ Ke7
29.Rg7+

Black resigned.

RG 6.4

Anand

Kramnik

Wijk aan Zee 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Re1
Bg4 9.c3 f5

A well-known theme in the Petroff Defence: Black supports the knight on e4 to

create attacking chances against the white king, but permanently loses control of
square e5.

10.Qb3 0-0 11.Nbd2

Taking on b7 is for those that like this kind of thing: 11.Qxb7?! Bxf3 12.gxf3
(after 12.Qxc6 Black switches the rook to the kingside, with dangerous attacking
chances: 12…Rf6 13.Qa4 Rg6) 12…Nxf2! 13.Kxf2 Bh4+ 14.Kf1 Bxe1 15.Qxc6
Qh4 16.Qxd5+ Kh8 17.Ke2 Rae8+ 18.Kd1 Qxh2, with a position that is hard to
assess.

Bad is 11.Nfd2? Nxf2 12.Kxf2 Bh4+ 13.g3 f4 14.Kg2 fxg3 15.hxg3 Qg5 16.Ne4
Bf3+ 17.Kg1 Qg4 18.Qxd5+ Kh8 19.Rf1 Rad8, with a winning attack for Black.

11…Na5

For 11…Kh8, see Makarichev-Kochiev.

12.Qa4 Nc6 13.Bb5 Bh4

Provoking g3, after which the h1-a8 diagonal is seriously weakened.

14.g3

Too dangerous is 14.Nxh4, as Black is close to mating his opponent after 14…
Qxh4 15.Rf1 Rf6! 16.f3 Rh6 17.Nxe4 Qxh2+ 18.Kf2 Bxf3 19.Kxf3 fxe4+
20.Ke2 Qxg2+ 21.Kd1 Rh2 22.Re1 Rf8. After 14.Rf1 Nxd2 15.Nxd2 Ne7 the
position is equal.

14…Bf6 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.Qxc6 Re8 17.Ne5

Bad is 17.c4? Nxd2 18.Rxe8+ Qxe8 19.Qxd5+ Kh8 20.Nxd2 Bh3! 21.Nf1 c6,
and on the next move Black penetrates on e1 with devastating force.

17…Bxe5 18.dxe5 Ng5

Recapturing the pawn is less good, as White gets good piece play after 18…
Rxe5 19.Nb3.

19.f4

More or less forced. After 19.h4 Re6 20.Qc5 Nh3+ 21.Kg2 f4 Black has an
attack, while 19.c4 d4 20.h4 Ne6 adds little to the white position.

19…Nh3+

An improvement compared to the game Shirov-Kramnik, Belgrade 1999, which

was played some time earlier.

There, White was better after 19…Re6 20.Qc5 Ne4 21.Nxe4 dxe4 22.Be3.

20.Kg2 Rb8 21.c4

White would like to consolidate his position with 21.Nb3 (followed by 22.Be3),
but he won’t be given the time. Kramnik gives 21…Rb6 22.Qc5 d4 23.cxd4
Qa8+ 24.d5 Rd8, and Black wins.

21…dxc4 22.Nxc4 Qd3

23.Ne3

After 23.Be3 Red8 24.Rac1 Rd5 25.Nd2 Black also draws with perpetual check
after 25…Qxd2+! 26.Bxd2 Rxd2+ 27.Kh1.

Bad is 23.Bd2? Red8 24.e6 Qxc4 25.Qxc4 Rxd2+, and Black wins.

23…Rxb2+! 24.Bxb2 Qd2+ 25.Kh1 Nf2+ 26.Kg1 Nh3+ 27.Kh1 Nf2+

Draw.

RG 6.4

Makarichev

Kochiev

Rostov 1980

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Re1
Bg4 9.c3 f5 10.Qb3 0-0 11.Nbd2 Kh8 12.h3

This looks illogical to me: before taking on b7, White plays h3, slightly
weakening his kingside. A well-known adage in the Sicilian goes: Never take on
b2, even if it’s correct. Would this also go for the b7 pawn, I wonder?

A good hint for White can be found in Movsesian-Kroeze, Breda 2001: 12.Qxb7
Rf6 13.Qb3 Rg6 14.g3 Rb8 15.Qc2 Bd6 16.b4 Qf6 17.b5 Ne7 18.Ne5! (after
returning the pawn White gets control of the dark squares and a fine knight on
d4) 18…Bxe5 19.dxe5 Qxe5 20.Ba3 Bh3 21.Nf3 Qf4 22.Nd4 Ng8 23.Re3 Ngf6
24.Rf3 Qg5 25.Bc1, and White reigns supreme.

12…Bh5 13.Qxb7 Rf6 14.Qb3 Rg6 15.Be2 Bd6

The correct spot for the bishop; after 15…Bh4 16.Rf1 Black finds it hard to
reinforce his position, and the direct assault with 15…Nxf2 is refuted by
16.Kxf2 Bh4+ 17.Kf1 Bxe1 18.Nxe1 Bxe2+ 19.Kxe2 Qe7+ 20.Kf1 Re8 21.Qd1,
and the attack peters out.
16.Ne5?!

A position of high tactical calibre. 16.Nxe4? fxe4 17.Ng5 Rxg5 18.Bxg5 Qxg5
19.Qb7 fails to 19…Rf8! 20.Bxh5 Qf4! 21.Qxc6 Qxf2+ 22.Kh1 Qg3, and White
has to shed a lot of material to prevent being mated. The text is tempting but
unleashes a devastating attack. White’s best bet seems to be 16.Kf1 in order to
sidestep a dangerous pin, at the same time threatening to take on d5.

16…Nxe5 17.Bxh5 Rxg2+ 18.Kxg2 Qg5+ 19.Kf1 Qh4 20.Nxe4

20.Rxe4 won’t help either: 20…Qxh3+ 21.Kg1 (after 21.Ke2 Qxh5+ 22.f3 fxe4
23.dxe5 Qxe5 Black has more than enough for his piece) 21…Ng4! 22.Bxg4
Bh2+! 23.Kh1 fxg4, and White is powerless against the various mating threats.

20…Qxh3+ 21.Kg1 fxe4 22.dxe5 Bxe5 23.Be3

White may already have run out of defensive options; 23.Qc2 loses after 23…
Bh2+ 24.Kh1 Bg3+ 25.Kg1 Qh2+ 26.Kf1 Qh1+ 27.Ke2 Qxh5+ 28.Kf1 Qh3+
29.Ke2 Bxf2, and White cannot take back, as the queen on c2 is unprotected. His
best bet is 23.f4 exf3ep 24.Qc2 Qg3+ 25.Kf1 Rf8! 26.Rxe5 Qxe5, although
Black still has a dangerous attack.

23…Rf8 24.Bf7

Here a draw was agreed, as the black player thought he had no more than
perpetual check; but he most surely can win. 24…Bh2+ 25.Kh1 Bd6+ (this is the
point – the bishop covers square f8 and Black can simply take on f7) 26.Kg1
Rxf7, threatens mate on f2 after 27…Bh2+ 28.Kh1 Bg3+ 29.Kg1 Qh2+ 30.Kf1
Rxf2+, which means that 27.Qb8+ Rf8 28.Qxa7 is White’s only chance.
However, Black wins after the beautiful 28…c6, after which he will capture the
queen.

RG 6.10
 Baert

Dutreeuw

Belgium 2000

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.c4
Nb4 9.cxd5

Not so common. This move leads to a totally different type of game from the
main line. White tries to catch his opponent unawares with pretty primitive
means (a pin along the e-file). Theoretically speaking, Black has nothing to fear,
but the variation is full of venom.

9…Nxd3 10.Qxd3 Qxd5 11.Re1 Bf5 12.Nc3

12.g4, to keep the bishop from the e-file, is a popular option, especially after
Anand had played it a few times. 12…Bg6 13.Nc3 (certainly not 13.Ne5? Nxf2!,
and Black is winning, a trick that, strangely enough, a good few white players
have fallen for) 13…Nxc3 14.Qxc3, with chances for both sides.

12…Nxc3 13.Qxc3 c6?!

Very logical but not good; correct is 13…Be6 14.Qxc7?! (better is 14.Re5 Qc6
15.Qe1 0-0-0 16.Bg5 Bxg5 17.Nxg5 Bd5 18.Rc1 Qb6 19.Re7 Kb8, with equal
chances) 14…Bd6 15.Qc3 0-0, and Black has beautiful compensation.

14.Bh6!!
Everything depends on speed. White is attacking a pawn and doubles his rooks
on the e-file as quickly as possible. He does not lose a piece, because the a1-h8
diagonal is opened.

14…gxh6

Browne, who thought up 14. Bh6!!, already scored a spectacular win with it
against Bisguier in 1974: 14…Rg8 15.Re5 Qd7 16.Rae1 Be6 17.Ng5 0-0-0
18.Nxf7 Bxf7 19.Rxe7 Qxd4 20.Rxf7 Qxc3 21.bxc3 gxh6, and the resulting
endgame was won. Black’s best chance is 14…Be6 15.Re5 Qd7 16.Bxg7 Rg8
17.Re3 0-0-0 18.Be5, and Black has some compensation for the pawn.

15.Re5 Qd7 16.Rae1 Be6 17.d5 0-0-0 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.Rxe6 Bd6 20.Qe3 Kb8

Far better is 20…Bb4 21.Rc1 Rhf8, after which White is better, but without
having a simple win.

21.Qxh6 Rhf8 22.Rd1 Bf4 23.Rxd7 Bxh6 24.Rxh7 Rd1+ 25.Re1 Rxe1+
26.Nxe1 Bc1 27.Nd3 Rd8 28.Rh3 Bg5 29.f4 Bf6 30.Kf2 c5 31.Ke2 Bd4 32.b3

Black resigned.

RG 6.12

Smikovsky

Motylev

Ekaterinburg 2002
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.c4
Nb4 9.Be2 0-0 10.Nc3

Another serious possibility is 10.a3. After 10…Nc6 11.cxd5 Qxd5 12.Nc3 Nxc3
13.bxc3 White has a strong centre.

10…Be6

There is a strange field of tension between the knights on e4 and c3: if White
takes on e4, the f3 knight is chased off, and if Black takes on c3, the b4 knight is
chased away with tempo.

11.Ne5

The latest fashion. An alternative is 11.Be3 Bf5 (this doesn’t lose a tempo on
account of the possibility of a fork on c2 now) 12.a3? (correct is 12.Rc1 dxc4
13.Bxc4 c6 14.Ne5 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Nd5, with a balanced position) 12…Nxc3
13.bxc3 Nc2, and White loses his e3 bishop.

11…c5

After 11…f6 White returns to f3, hoping to be able to raid the loose pieces on
the e-file.

12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.d5 Bc8

It has been shown that 13…Bd6 14.a3 Bxe5 15.axb4 Bf5 16.bxc5 Qc7 17.g3
Qxc5 18.Be3 Qd6 19.c5 Qf6 leaves White with too strong a grip on the centre.

14.a3 Na6 15.f3

Modern opening theory is littered with subtleties: White wants to provoke 15…
Bd6, so that the bishop can no longer go to the f6-a1 diagonal. Now Black has a
satisfactory position after 15.f4 f6 16.Ng4 Bxg4 17.Bxg4 f5 18.Bh3 Bf6.

15…Qc7 16.Ng4?!

A big blunder. 16.Bf4 is correct but looks like losing a piece after 16…Bd6 (after
16…exf3 17.Rxf3 Bd6 18.Nd3 White is slightly better, because the knight on a6
is sidelined) 17.fxe4 Bxe5, but after 18.d6 he wins his piece back with
interposition, keeping the better position.

16…f5 17.Nf2 Bd6 18.h3

After 18.g3 Black can also sacrifice: 18…Bxg3 19.hxg3 Qxg3+ 20.Kh1 Rf6, and
the rook is on its way to g6, so that White will have to shed material.

18…Qe7 19.Qb3

19.fxe4?? is not good in view of 19…Qe5, of course. White’s best bet is to close
off the d6-h2 diagonal with 19.f4, yet after 19…g5! 20.g3 gxf4 21.gxf4 Qh4
22.Kh1 Kf7! 23.Bh5+ Ke7 (the king is safe here) 24.Qe2 Rg8 I prefer Black.

19…Qh4 20.Qe3 f4! 21.Qc3

21.Qxe4?? loses the queen after 21…Bf5. But now White has to stand by
helplessly while a covered pawn ensconces itself on e3.

21…e3 22.Ne4
22…Bxh3!!

Harvest time.

23.gxh3 Rae8 24.Nxd6

After 24.Qe1 Qxh3 White cannot prevent Black from playing 25…Rf5, followed
by 26…Rxe4 and 27…Rg5+.

24…Qg3+ 25.Kh1 Qxh3+ 26.Kg1 Qg3+ 27.Kh1 Qh4+ 28.Kg2 Qg5+ 29.Kh2
Re5

After a number of checks the point of the combination is revealed: the rook is
shunted to g5 by way of e5.

30.Qxe5 Qxe5 31.Ne4 Qh5+

And White resigned, as Black will now execute an identical manoeuvre: the
queen goes to g6 and the rook goes to h5 via f5, and White is mated.