Open Gambits - Botterill

George Botteri II

Open Gambits

Open Gambits: Italian and Scotch Gambit Play GEORGE BOTTERILL

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1 986 George Botterill 1986

©

ISBN 0 7134 5085 l (limp) Photoset by Andek Printing, London and printed in Great Britain by Billing & Son Ltd, London and Worcester, for the publishers B.T.Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W I H OAH

A BA TSFORD CHESS BOOK

A dviser: R . D. Keene G M , OBE Technical Editor: P . A . Lamford

Contents ��

7

Symbols and References Introduction

8 9

Part 1: Greco Gambit

15

Section 1 : Moller Attack - Main Line

17 21 28 30 32

Section Section Section Section Section Section Section

2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8:

Moller Attack - 1 3 . . . 0-0 Moller Attack - 1 2 g4!? Moller Attack - 1 0 . . . 0-0 Moller Attack - Black's 9th Move Alternatives Steinitz's 9 b3 and 10 .ia3 8 . liJxc3 Has Anyone Got Any B etter Ideas? ..

35 38 42

Part 2: Evans Gambit

48

Section 1 : 6 0-0 - Lasker's Defence Section 2: 6 0-0 - 7 . . . .ig4 and 7 . . . .id7 Section 3: 6 0-0 - Black's 6th Move Alternatives Section 4: 6 d4 - Main Line Section 5: Compromised Defence Section 6: 6 d 4 d6 Section 7: 6 "t!Yb3 Section 8: 5 . . . .ic5 and the ' Normal Position' Section 9 : 5 . . . .ie7 Section 10: The Gambit Declined

52 56 61

65 71 74 79 81 86 91

Part 3: Scotch Gambit

96

Section 1 : Main Line 5 de Section 2: Declining with 5 d3 Section 3: 4 . . . li:lf6 (Two Knights Defence)

98 I 00 1 02

Part 4: Goring Gambit

106

Section Section Section Section

Ill

-

. ..

. ..

1: 2: 3: 4:

Main Line with 8 . . . .ig4 ! Black's 8th M ove Alternatives Black's 6th M ove Alternatives 5 . d6

Section 5 : 5 .ic4 Section 6: The Gambit Declined

1 13 1 18 1 20 1 26 1 30

Index of Complete Games Index of Variations for I talian (Greco and Evans) Gambits Index of Variations for Scotch (Scotch and Goring) Gambits

1 42 1 43 144

..

Preface Throughout this book I have adopted an analytic , even clinical, approach to these Open Gambits in an atte mpt to give a realistic assessment of their prospects in the light of current skill and knowledge. But we should not forget the commendable spirit of enterprise and adventure which gambiteers have displayed. If chess is a game to be enjoyed, then a sporting attitude must be at least as important as technical accuracy. Whatever their success in future tournaments, t hese gambits have left a rich legacy of charming variations and beautiful games. I would like to acknowledge the encouragement supplied by Peter Kemmis Betty and Paul Lamford and the many invaluable suggestions and re minders that have come from my old friend Tim Harding in the course of this attempt to record that legacy. George Botterill Aberystwyth July 1 985

Symbols + =

;!; +

±=F

±± H 00

! !! !? ?! ? ??

Ch corres

check equal position slight advantage clear advantage winning advantage unclear good move brilliant move interesting move dubious move weak move blunder Championship correspondence game

W or B at the side of a diagram indicates which player is to move. A number in brackets after a move refers to the diagram of that number.

References to 'Botterill & Harding' or ' Harding & Botterill' are to the books G.S.Botterill & T.D. Harding, The Scotch ( Batsford 1 977) T.D.Harding & G . S . Botterill, The Italian Game (Batsford 1 977) References to 'Cafferty & Harding are to the comprehensive study B. Cafferty & T.D. Harding, Play the Evans Gambit (Hale 1 976) '

Other major sources: Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO ), Volume C Batsford Chess Openings (BCO ) lnformator New in Chess

Introduction This book is devoted to four gambit lines in the open game ( I e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6) - the Greco Gambit (3 .i.c4 .ic5 4 c3 ltlf6 5 d4), the Evans Gambit (3 .tc4 .i.c5 4 b4), the Scotch Gambit ( 3 d4 ed 4 .ic4) and the Goring Gambit (3 d4 ed 4 c3). Aside from White's resolution to regard the loss of a pawn as a mere trifle, the common factor is his early advance d2-d4, which has two main objectives: I. To eliminate Black's central pawn at e5. 2. To open lines as quickly as possible for the activation of White's pieces. LAYOUT

The major innovation of this study is not in the moves, but in their presentation . I n spite of subversive modernisms, many still insist that a tale well told should have a beginning, a middle and an end, in that order. The procedure adopted here inverts the traditional sequence. I start with a straight and fairly long theoretical line and work backwards, retracting main line m oves in the subsequent sections. 'Peel-back' analysis seems an appropriate name. Whether this experiment works is for the reader to decide. It has certain advantages. Peel-back layout gives us u ncluttered access to theoretically crucial positions, without side-tracking en route through a maze of subsidiary variations. This should at least aid memorization of the most important lines. What appeals to me most about peel-back analysis is that it actually reflects the thinking of someone who is trying to work out how an opening should be handled. The one thing that you can rely on about opening theory is that its current results will be unsatisfactory from somebody's point of view. Perhaps White only gets equality when he was hoping for more. Or a defence that you had favoured as Black is leading to trouble. So we have the main sequence and the question is how to get out of it. Let's consider retracting these moves and see what other

10 Introduction

possibilities are available atan earlier stage. That is exactly how peel-back anai ysis operates. To some extent selection of the main line is a matter of taste. Sometimes there are rival candidates with equally good qualifications . S o I d o n ot guarantee that the main lines (the first section o n each o f the four gambits) constitute best play for both sides. Peel back to see whether they do! A MODERN ROLE FOR OLD-FASHIONED OPENINGS?

Do I come to praise these gambits or to bury them? Well, at the most general level the verdicts are that the Greco G ambit has to be laid to rest, the Scotch Gambit has little independent significance (since B lack can and should switch out of it), and the Goring Gambit is a sporting chance but ultimately unfavourable for White. Only the Evans remains fit for active service. So what is the use of these rather old-fashioned gambits? Hasn't modern theory and practice renounced them for quieter and more sophisticated methods? One motive for looking at them will appeal to potential defenders. If you answer 1 e4 with 1 . . . e5, intending some defence against the ever popular Ruy Lopez, you need to be prepared against these gambits. But is there any reason why the rest of us should bother with them ? I think there is. F o r study and play of these gambits i s t h e ideal tactical training ground. Training in tactics is important for everyone, and above all for younger and less experienced players. Control of tactical interchanges is essential to any degree of strength at chess . Without it all the positional insight in the world will not raise you above the level of a patzer. A common manifestation of this can be observed in matches between teams of unequal strength. It often happens that three quarters of the way through the session the lower-rated players have excellent positions and alarm-bells are starting to ring in the head of the stronger team's captain. But he need not have worried. In the last hour the weaker players collapse and mess up all their nice positions. The tactical weakness of the lower-rated players shows as soon as the pieces start to clash in earnest. The pathetic spectacle of someone playing the first twenty-five moves like a grandmaster and the next ten like a gorilla is becoming quite common nowadays. During a 'chat show' at the 1 983 British Championships one member of the audience asked the panel what openings they would recommend for beginners. There was general agreement that stodgy lines should be

Introduction 11

avoided: in chess you need to run before you can crawl with serpentine nuance. Glenn Flear nominated the Goring Gambit as an excellent thing to play in order to get acquainted with the power of the pieces. In a way, this book is my considered reply to that question. My hope is that it will be useful to coaches and that chess masters in schools will be able to assist their pupils by setting them to play on from the diagram positions at the beginning of the sections. Let the players then compare the way their game went with lines given in the text. The results should be· interesting and instructive. THEMES AND PRINCIP LES

From the positional point of view we are on the nursery slopes. There are really no general positional themes that characterize these gambits. This is because White's initial gambit approach opens up the centre of the board, leaving little in the way of central pawn structure. A happy hunting ground for those who dislike blocked positions with interlocking pawn chains. Everything depends on the relative activity of the pieces. Special atten.., tion should be given to the role of White's queen's bishop, one of the most important attackers, particularly when its dark-squared opponent is exchanged off or driven back to a5 or b6. Watch out for the move .tci-a3, which crops up quite often. By controlling the a3-f8 diagonal White can sometimes prevent Black from castling, or pin a knight on e7, or drive a rook away from defence of f7. That point f7 is, of course, Black's traditional weak spot in open games. In the following pages we repeatedly see White lining up on it, most often with .tc4 and 'tWb3. It is worth noting, however, how often Black can respond with ... lila5, allowing f7 to fall , but eliminating White's light-squared bishop. For an example of this procedure look at our main line in the Goring Gambit. Is modern defensive technique killing off these gambit openings? If so, it would be nice to know what the main principles of defensive play are; In fact I think the increased strength of defence is not so much an application of principle as a matter of'storage'. Once you have seen what has gone wrong in the past you can avoid it in the future, and so defences get toughened by a process of elimination. Perhaps the single most important thing for the defender to bear in mind is that the timely return of material is a vital resource. Examples abound - Lasker's Defence to the Evans Gambit ('Evans Gambit with 6 �: Lasker's Defence') being a classic illustration.

·12 Introduction

But it really is impossible to generalize about when material should be returned and when it should be retained. Quite often Black gets the opportunity to grab a second pawn. Sometimes this is suicidal, but on other occasions it is the right thing to do (e.g. Goring Gambit: 5 .i.c4). The ultimate lesson to be learned from these gambit openings is that there is a balance between the elements of Material, Time, Space and Co-ordination. A deficit in one factor can be compensated by advantage in one or more of the others. But where exactly the balance lies has to be a matter for on-site judgement. THE EVIDENCE OF GAMES

We have to learn from results in practice, but games cannot always be trusted. There is a strong temptation to infer that the side that won must have exploited an advantage that was already there, especially when the manner of the victory is striking and brilliant. Such inferences are risky. Look out for the places where the annotator writes something like: 'This loses, but it was hopeless anyway.' You should always pause to consider whether that is really so. The gambits in this book are offered quite frequently in postal play probably with a greater relative frequency than in over-the-board tournaments. One ought to be wary of reading too much into the results of correspondence games. Ideally correspondence play can be conducted at the highest level without the time-trouble errors that mar so many over-the-board encounters . But one of the charming features of correspondence chess is that it gives weaker players a chance to debate interesting theoretical lines . And if they are weaker, funny things are liable to happen. To be fair to the correspondence fraternity I will append a couple of examples of odd goings-on at the board. Since these gambits are no longer in fashion the theoretically important games may often be quite ancient. What reliance can be placed upon the validity of 1 9th century successes? In general we should not be too sniffy about the quality of old games. The old masters knew a lot about lines that their successors have neglected. But I am worried about the quality of the Chigorin-Steinitz encounters, which occupy an important position in the history of the Evans Gambit. Consider this position, which arose after Black's 20th move in the 1 7th game of the 1 889 Chigorin-Steinitz match (for the opening moves see 'Evans Gambit with 6 0-0: Black's 6th move alter­ natives', variation B):

Introduction 13 w

With queen, rook and bishop huddled together out of play Black ought not to survive for long. 21

lt:lxeS+!

'it>g7

After 2 1 . . . fe 22 f4 White's major pieces would quickly kill off Black's lonely king. 22

lt:lc4

bS

White was threatening not only 23 llJxb6 but also 23 e5 . So Steinitz makes a desperate try to bring his queen at least into the game. 23 lt:lb6 is good enough now, but the move Chigorin actually played is j ust as strong. 23 24

ab b6

'it'a7 'it'a4

What a bishop on c8! For all practical purposes White is a piece up and should win easily. Incredibly Chigorin not o nly failed to exploit his advantage, but dropped the pawn at b6 and allowed Black's bishop to come into play. In the end he was lucky to escape with a draw. Three years later this position occurred after White's 23rd move in the 7th game of their second match (see ' Evans Gambit with 6 0-0: 7 -*.g4, 7 . . . i.d7' , variation B l for the opening): . ..

ii B

14 Introduction White is somewhat better because Black owns weak pawns at c5 and e5 and the bishop on b6 is a problem piece. But Steinitz has some counterplay on the kingside - which he botched horribly with: 23 24 25

�xg2 'tlfxf3

lD xg2?? .i. xf3+ 'ti'gS+

With the 'point' that he wins the rook on d2. 26 27

hl 'ifxf7+

'itxd2 �h7

Perhaps Steinitz thought there was nothing worse to fear than 28 'itxe8 '1Vxb2 - though even then he is mated in three! 28

ll:gl

1 -0

GRECO GAMBIT

1 I 2 3 4 5

e4 ti:lf3

�c4 c3 d4 (1)

B

eS tt:lc6 �cS lDf6

The name 'Greco Gambit' is not a standard label for this early central rupture. But I think it ought to be as Greco supplied some of the analysis (given here in section 7) that provided the initial motivation for the gambit. The analytical biography of the gambit is a sad story, with no hope of a happy ending for the gambiteer. In a way that is in keeping with the fate of Gioachino Greco ( c. l 600-c. l 635). There is a tale that, having won some 5,000 crowns by overcoming France's leading players in 1 62 1 , he was robbed of all his prize money by outlaws while visiting England in the following year. During his lifetime he peddled manuscripts on chess openings to wealthy patrons. When these were collected and published after his death they became enormously influential for more than a century. Yet in the long run his pioneering analyses were received with little gratitude, since masters who came after him - like Stamma and Philidor - were more eager to stress their own superiority than to accord credit that was due. Unfortunately, there is n o way of retrieving this gambit from the pil e of opening discards. Section 7, including Greco's contributions, is

16 Greco Gambit: Introduction redundant now because after 5 ... ed 6 cd .i.b4+ 7 ll:lc3 ll:lxe4 8 0-0 Black plays not 8 .. . ll:lxc3 (though even that need not lose - see section 7, variation B) but 8 . .. .txc3! . Any hopes White might then have enter­ tained after 9 be were squashed by Lasker in his 1 896 match against Steinitz (see section 6). After this attention turned to 9 dS - the Moller Attack (sections 1 -5). I t seemed that this clever idea might keep the gambit alive. Detailed analysis finally stabilized towards the opinion that it should all end in a draw after 9 dS .i.f6 10 I!el l'De7 I I l he4 d6 I2 .i.gS .txgS 1 3 lL:lxgS 0-0 14 ll:lxh7 (as in section 2). That in itself puts off the fi rst player who has healthy ambitions. But there is worse to come. After all, 9 d5 is a very artificial move, obstructing White's own bishop on c4. Black need not rest content with 1 3 . . . 0-0. 13 ... h6, as in s ection I, gives the second player excellent winning chances. As the Greco Gambit is practically moribu nd an illustrative game would be out of place here. For model play by Black look at Barczay­ Portisch in variation C of section I. For White there is nothing to recommend. Section 8 surveys some ki ndred lines in Italian gambit style. But they do not inspire confidence. So I am forced to conclude that White ought to peel away the gambit move 5 d4 and, if he is to play the Italian G ame at all, do so in its 'very quiet' form ('Giuoco Pianissimo') with 5 d3 . This may not suit people who like gambit openings, but there is life in the idea, favoured by the idiosyncratic 1 9th century master H . E . Bird, of early expansion on the queenside with b2-b4 and a2-a4. For example, 5 d3 d6 (Some prefer 5 . . . a6 precisely because it does not encourage b4 and a4, e.g. 5 . . . a6 6 0-0 d6 7 I!e l .i.a7 8 .i.b3 0-0 9 lLlbd2 .i.e6 has been seen in several games.) 6 b4 .i.b6 7 a4 aS 8 bS ll:l e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 l'Dbd2 ll:l g6 11 .ta2 (2) 2 B

Here 'quietness' has been acco mpanied by avoidance of exchanges

17

Greco Gambit: Introduction

and a steady build-up of tension . A complicated struggle will develop after II . . c6 (Miles-Nikolac, Dortmund 1 979) or 1 1 . . . .ig4 (Pinter­ Mestel, Las Palmas IZ 1982) . .

Section 1 Moller Attack: Main Line

.

The position that is the focal point

of our investigation into the Moller A ttack arises after the moves: 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

e4 lt:Jf3

..tc4 c3 d4 cd �c3 0-0 dS lle1 ll xe4 ..tgS li:J xgS

analyses have firmly established the conclusion that after Black's alternative 13 . . 0-0 a draw is de monstrable. But can Black legi­ timately try for more ? In an earlier book (The Italian Game, 1 977) Tim Harding and I boldly gave 1 3 . h6 an unqualified exclamation mark. In so far as these symbols have an objective value, I still think that is probably the correct selection. But here I more cautious­ ly insert '!?' because in playing this move Black does incur some risk of losing. The resul tant variations have not been so exhaustively researched as those ste mming from 13 . . . 0-0 and White has some messy tries, which may not be convi n cing and yet are certainly confusing. Obviously, retreating the attack­ ed knight will not appeal to White. After 14 li:Jf3 0-0 Black is a solid pawn to the good with no prob­ lems. So I analyse :

eS lt:Jc6 ..tcS �f6 ed .ib4+ �xe4 .ixc3 .if6 li:Je7 d6 .ixgS h6!? (3)

3 w

.

.

A 14 1!t'e2 B 14 'ti'hS C .14 ..tbS+ D 14 li:Jxf7 A

It is the assessment of the move 13 . . . h6!? that is really the theoretically interesting question about the Moller Attack. Previous

14

't!te2

Nothi n g could be more natural than this attempt to smash through along the open file.

18 Greco Gambit: Section 1 Black, how ever, has a resource, blocking the file with a counter­ sacrifice: 14

15 16

lle1 de

hg i.e6! f6 + (4)

4 w

Moller Attack

Main

Line

ordinated and the black pawns rather vulnerable ( l-0, 3 1 ). In fact the endgame is tenable with good defence, but we need not go into that. O ne commentator actually claimed that 15 . . . i.d7? is the only move. The truth is that only 15 . .. 1!fd7 is worse. Black could perfectly well play 1 5 . . . 'it>f8 16 lle I .i.e6 1 7 d e f6 1 8 i.d7 c6 with the same basic advantages as in the previous diagram - although it may be a little more difficult to unwind with the bishop on d7 and the king on f8. However, that need not concern us either. 15 i.b5+ is immediately refuted by 15 c6! 1 6 de (or 1 6 ll e 1 i.e6! ) 1 6 . . . 'it>f8 ! . ...

This is Zek's analysis, sub­ sequently endorsed by Keres, amongst others. The pawn at e6 may. be something of a thorn in :Qlack's position, but as far as White is concerned it is a total road-block! The extra pawn should tell in the end, in spite of Black's backward development, thanks to the fact that the solid black pawn phalanx prevents any incursion by the white pieces. It might seem that this verdict on 14 't!fe2 has been overturned by the correspondence game Girod­ Multala, 3rd European Team Ch Preliminaries. Here White came up with 15 i.b5+ and after 15 . . . i.d7 1 6 ll e 1 i.xb5 1 7 lilxe7+ eMS 18 1Wxb5 'it'xe7 19 ll xe7 �xe7 20 \i'xb7 ll hc8 2 1 h3 emerged with a queen v two rook endgame in which the rooks were po01"1y co-

B 14

1!fh5

The obvious drawback to this move is that it does not prevent castling. 14 15

0-0

llae1

Where should the black knight go? Zek gave 15 ltlf5, with the point 16 lL!xf7 1!rf6 ! . We can add that after 16 li:lf3 g6 1 7 1!rh3 h5! takes out the g2-g4 threat, and that the combinative attempt 1 6 li:le6? ! fe 1 7 d e i s refuted b y 1 7 . . . lL!e7 or 1 7 . . . d5 (but not 1 7 . . . 'fke7? 1 8 llf4 c6 1 9 l1xf5. lle8? 20 llf7 1 -0 Bateman-Boisvert, corres 1 9 84). Yet White has better i n 1 6 ltlh3 !?, allowing the queen to withdraw along the h5-d 1 diagonal. The situation is not so clear then: the kni ght on f5 and bishop on c8 ...

Moller Attack Main Line 1 9

Greco Gambit: Section 1

do not combine well. So I prefer 15 lt.Jg6. There are some tactical shots, but nothing that works for White, e.g. 16 liJ xf7 �f6 + again. On 1 6 lt.Je6 fe 1 7 �xg6 e 5 (but not 1 7 . llf6? 1 8 d e �e7 1 9 �f7+) w e find that 1 8 llxe5 does not suffice: 1 8 . . . de 1 9 d6+ �h8 20 i.d3 i.f5 ! . So White has nothing better than 16 liJf3 �f6 , with indisputable advantage to Black. ...

. .

c

i.d7 14 i.b5+ A brilliant piece of analysis by Sozin (Sovremenny Debyut, 1 940) eliminates the more loosening 1 4 . . . c6?!: 1 5 liJxf7! (the obvious 1 5 de? 0-0! i s n o t s o good) 1 5 . . . �xf7 1 6 'it'f3+ i.f5 17 de be ( 17 . �g6 18 i.d3 !) 1 8 i.xc6 llc8 19 ll ae 1 lt.Jxc6 20 1!fxf5+ �g8 2 1 f4 ± (5) .

.

5 B

2 4 b4! also leaves Black helpless to prevent a decisive penetration by the white rook. The best defence seems to be 2 1 . . . d5 when it would be a mistake for White to allow the further advance of the d-pawn, e.g. 21 . .. d5 22 ll e3? d4 23 ll e4 d3 24 1!Vg6 d2 25 lle8+ �xe8 26 ll xe8+ llxe8 27 1!t'xe8+ �h7leaves White struggling for the draw. But after the simpler 22 lle8+! 1!t'xe8 23 lixe8+ ll xe8 24 1!fxd5+ �h7 25 'it'xc6 White has all the winning chances. 1 5 'it'e2 Since this is unsatisfactory White might feel impelled to lash out here with 15 lt.Jxf7!? �xf7 1 6 't!t'f3 +, which gives Black oppor­ tunities to err. 1 6 . . . �g6?, for example, loses neatly to 1 7 llxe7 'flxe7 1 8 i.d3+ �g5 19 h4+ �xh4 20 'irg3+ �h5 2 1 i.g6 mate. Also weak is 16 . .. lt.Jf5? 17 i.xd7 �xd7 18 lle6 when White regains the piece with advan tage. B est is 16 . . . �g8 1 7 llae 1 (6) 6 B

It is hard to be sure about such complex tactics, but I have not been able to find any improvements for Black on moves 1 5-20 and the final position is certainly awkward for him. White's main threat is 22 �g6 (intending lie8) and 2 1 ... 'irf8 does nothing to stop this. 2 1 . . . 11rb6+ 22 �h 1 'trb8 23 9g6 �f8

This is one of the messy possibilities I mentioned at the beginning of the section . No

20 Greco Gambit: Section 1

doubt White's sacrifice is inade­ quate, a mere swindling try. 'Seeing' that is easy enough: proving it is tougher. 17 . . . lLl xd5?? is a blunder because of 1 8 i.c4 and 19 lle7. But 17 . . . tbf5 ( H arding& Botterill, 1 977), 1 7 . . . lLlg6 and 1 7 . . . i.xb5 are all plausible. They are probably all good for Black, but I cannot hope to give exact demonstrations here. For example, after 17 . . . i.xb5 1 8 ll xe7 'fi'f8 1 9 'fi'e4 '@f6 20 a4 llf8 2 1 f3 i.a6 22 b4 White still has rather awkward pressure. 1 7 . . . lLlf5 is less obscure. It is quite important that after 17 . . . lLlf5 18 i.xd7 '@xd7 19 lU4 Black breaks the bind with 1 9 . . . lle8 ! , whilst 19 g4 lLl h4 gives Black time to parry lle4-e7. Least murky seems 1 7 .. . tbg6, after which I cannot see any compen­ sation for White's piece ( 1 8 1Wg3 i.xb5 1 9 1!fxg6 'irf6 H; 1 8 i.xd7 1!rxd7 19 't!rg3 'ti'f7) . 15

i.xb 5 !

This is t h e move that makes 1 3 .. . h 6 the crucial test o f the Mciller Attack. After 15 . .. �f8 1 6 ll e 1 Black's developmental problems give White compensation for the pawn: a) 1 6 . .. lLl xdS? 1 7 lLlxf7! �xf7 1 8 .tc4 c6 1 9 lle7+ �g8 20 'irf3 ± Unzicker. (Co mpare 1 7 . . . tb xd5?? from the previous diagram.) b) 1 6 . . . tbg8 17 lLlf3 lLl f6 18 lie7 and if now 18 . .. i.e6 White smashes through with 19 lixe6 fe 20 tbd4 ! , when Black i s in big

Moller A ttack Main Line

trouble (20 . . . 'ti'e7 2 1 lLlf5). c) 16 ... lLl g6 ! ? 17 lLlf3 ( 17 lLle6+ seems to be a near miss after 17 . . . fe 1 8 d e i.xb5) 1 7 . . . c 6 1 8 i.c4 with continuing complicatio ns. 16

'ii'x bS+

17

'ti'e2

"t!fd7 (7)

7 w

White lacks convincing alter­ natives: a) 1 7 'it'xd7+? �xd7 18 lLl xf7 ll hf8 H - Portisch. b) The exchange sacrifice 17 llxe7+ �xe7 1 8 lie!+ �d8 1 9 't!rxb7 llc8 is a tempo short: White needs his knight to be back on f3 already for tbd4-c6 (20 lLlf3 c5). c) 17 "@'d3 hg 18 llael 0-0 19 lixe7 llfe8 20 ll7e3 (Wolf-Laue, l Oth German Junior Corres Ch 197 1 ) and now 2 0 . . . c5 ! (Wade) leaves Black a sound pawn up. d) 17 'it'xb 7 0-0 18 ll ae l lLlg6 1 9 lLlf3 lifb8 2 0 "ii' a6 ll xb2 i s the line that gives White the best chance of holding the draw, although both 2 1 tb d4 lbe5 22 f4 tbg6 (Laue) and 2 1 h4 'fi'b5 leave Black clearly on top. 17

�f8!

Greco Gambit: Section 18

I

lbxf7

White has little choice, since Black is just two pawns up after 1 8 lDf3 lDxd5 . 18 19

lle1

�xf7 lOgS!

Estrin calls this 'an unclear and complicated position' ( Compre­ hensive Chess Openings, Vol . 1 ), but so far as I can see White is simply lost. The king is going to f8 and the knight is coming to f6, after which . . . li eS will simplify. The game B arczay-Portisch, Hun­ garian Ch 1 968 concluded: 20 lie6 �f8 21 f4 lDf6 22 lie7 lieS 23 lixe8+ \txe8 24 'ii'f2 'tlt'h5 0- l . All White's thrusts deftly parried, an efficient defensive performance. D

14

lbxf7

�xf7

15 'it'f3+ lDf5 There are obvious objections to other defences: a) 15 ... �g6? 16 lixe7 wins. b) 15 ... �g8 /e8 16 liae l . c) 15 . . . i.f5 1 6 liae l lie8 1 7 i.b5 ! . 16

lie6!? (8)

8 B

Moller Attack Main Line 21 1 6 g4 is none too good because Black can calmly reply 16 . . . lil_f8 1 7 gf �g8 =t=. The exchange sacrifice 1 6 lle6 gives White assorted tactical chances, but it can hardly qualify as adequate. Black can choose between 16 . .. i.xe6 1 7 de+ �e7 1 8 't!Yxf5 \te8 ! and 1 6 . . . g 6 1 7 g 4 i.xe6 1 8 de+ �e7 1 9 gf gf 20 'it'xf5 \tg8+ 2 1 �h 1 't!fh7 ! . Conclusion: 1 3 . . . h6 gives Black excellent winning chances against the Moller Attack. Peel-bac k:- To determine whether

this invalidates the whole gambit approach with 5 d4 we must peel back to see if any earlier deviations offer better prospects. This is rather depressing from White's point of view since it is pretty clear that he will have to retract every­ thing at least as far back as 9 d5, the move that characterizes the Moller Attack. By contrast Black does have options on moves 9- 1 3 . I n particular there is 1 3 . . . 0-0 which, as I said earlier, leads to a draw. The next section checks this out.

Section 2 Moller Attack: 13 ... 0-0

Simply regaining the piece with

1 2 3

e4

lijf3 .tc4

e5 lbc6 i.c5

ll ·GJYco Gtlmblt: Stction 2

Moller Attack 13 . . . 0-0

10f6 ed .tb4+ lb xe4 .i x c 3

16 lith4 rs (I OJ 16 . .. f6 appears to lead even

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

c3 d4 cd li)c3 0-0 dS liel li xe4 .igS li)xg5

.if6 lbe7 d6 .ixg5 0-0 (9)

9 w

We can remark en passant that 13 . . . .if5? would be a fatal mistake, losing to 1 4 'it'f3 ! ( 1 4 . . . 1!fd7 1 5 .ib5 ! 1!Vxb5 1 6 1i'xf5 ++I 14 . . . .ixe4 1 5 1!Vxf7+ 'it>d7 1 6 'ii'e 6+ 'it>e8 1 7 'ti"xe4 'it'd? 1 8 li e 1 a6 1 9 ltl xh7 'it>d8 20 lb g5 lieS 21 lbe6+ 'it>c8 22 ltl xg7 1-0 E mery­ Menchik, Biarritz 1939). 14

lbxh7!

Nothing else is going to trouble Black. Now he has an option between: A 14 ... �xh7 B 14 . .ifS .

.

A 14 IS

1!Vh5+

ct>xh7 ct>g8

more directly to a draw in view of the variation 1 7 g4 lieS lS .id3 'it>f8 19 'ii'h S + lDgS 20 .ih7 'it>f7 21 .ig6 + ! 'it>f8 and White has a repetition with 22 .ih7, but nothing more. 10 w

The reason why White does not deliver mate is that the bishop on c4 is not properly participating in the attack - blame it on 9 d5, if you wish. White can try to work the bishop into , a sniping position with the manoeuvre .ie2-h5 , for were the bishop already on e2 1 7 'ifh7+ 'it>f7 IS Ith6 followed by .ih5+ would be decisive. As it is, the .ie2-h5 switch devours precious time and when the bishop stands on e2 it annoyingly obstructs a rook on e l . 17

'ii'h 7+

There are several other attempts, but they have been heavily analysed and all except 1 7 lih3 (and actually I think that fails too: see below) have been found wanting. Given that this position has been subject-

Moller Attack 13 . 0-0 23

Greco Gambit: Section 2 ed to independent scrutiny by the likes of Maroczy, Bogoljubow, Keres, Euwe, Vu kovic, Evans and Estrin, one might think that the probability of someone's coming up with a novel coup that will enable White to drive home his attack must be vanishingly small. Well, if you really work away at a complex tactical position like this, it is surprising and revealing to find how many errors are commit­ ted and perpetuated by famous names. a) 1 7 i.e2 l::l e 8! 1 8 l::le l (or 1 8 'iih 7+ �f8 ! and both 1 9 l:th6 lbg8 H and 19 i.h5 �g8 + are White failures) 1 8 . . . �f8 19 i.b5 (11) 11 B

.

.

e7 26 1!t'e6+ and 27 l::l x g8 :::!±) 24 i.b5 25 l::l h 8+ ltlg8 and White has at least a draw in hand (also at most?) with 26 1!t'f5+ f7 28 't!t'h5+ etc. a2) 19 c6! 20 l:te6 (inadequate, but 20 de be is no better) 20 . . . i.xe6 2 1 d e ltlg6 ! 2 2 'iixg6 1!t'f6 H (von Feilitzsch) . b) 1 7 l::l e 1 ltl g6 1 8 l:th3 l:tf6! (18 . . . f4 i s regularly queried because of 19 l::le 6!?, though even this is not particularly convincing after 19 . .. l::lf6) 1 9 't!Vh 7 + g7 20 lit e7 ! de 2 1 ltJxc6! 'i!Vd3 (2 1 . . . b e 22 Wxf6+!) 22 llxf7+ g8 24 'i!Vxf6 llh7 25 lle8+ 1-0 Lazard-Gibaud, Paris 1 909. Very pretty, but Black would surely do better to play . . . c7-c6 a move earlier. After 1 4 ... c6 he threatens 15 . . . cd 1 6 i.xd5 ltJ xd5 17 'it"xd5 i.e6 1 8 'it'xb7 'ti'c8 , when the bishop pair and White's vulnerable pawns at g4 and b2 give Black a definite advantage . The pressure against d5 and g4 after 14 . . . c6 makes it hard to find a reasonable 1 5th move for White - 1 5 g5 just loses a second pawn to 1 5 . . . hg 16 lbl .txg5 lbxd5.

Conclusion: 1 2 g4!? has never really been given serious consi­ deration because, understandably, nobody believes in it. Actually, I would say that the variations deriving from 12 g4 0-0 are not obviously any worse for White than the main line ( 1 2 .ig5 i.xg5 13 lb xg5 h6) - though that is not much of a recommendation. In any case, 12 . . . h6 seems to stop White dead in his tracks, provided that Black plays . . . c7-c6 quickly enough.

In the next phase of our peel-back we can retract the moves 1 1 llxe4 d6. . The former requires no com ment , and although Black might well play I I . . 0-0 instead of I I . . . d6 this will simply transpose into the next section , in which Black plays I 0 .. . 0-0 instead of 10 . . . ltJe7. .

Section 4 Moller Attack: 10 0-0 . . .

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

e4 ltjf3 .t c4 c3

d4 cd ltJc3 0-0 d5

lle1

e5 lbc6 .ic5 lbf6 ed .ib4+ lbxe4 .ixc3 .if6 0-0 (21)

Moller A ttack 10 . . . 0-0 3 1

Greco Gambit: Section 4

better chances.

21 w

12

cd

Now comes a quite problematic choice between: A 1 3 't!Vxd6 B 13 i.. g S!? A 13 14

11

lhe4

li:Je7

One can hardly approve of 1 1 ... li:Ja5!?, putting the knight out of play and leaving the kingside short of defenders . Two game examples : 12 i.d3 d6 and now: a) 13 i.d2 c5 14 Ilf4 i.e7 1 5 'i!Va4 b 6 16 ll e 1 f5 17 g4 i.. d 7 (after 1 7 . . . g5 1 8 llxf5 i.xf5 1 9 i.. xf5 White has more than enough for the exchange) 18 'i!Vc2 fg 19 i.xh7+ h8 20 't!Vg6 ! :i± Eisinger­ Degenhardt, Bad Aibling 1 965 . b) 1 3 g4 c5 1 4 g5 (or 1 4 't!Ve2) 1 4 . . . i.e7 1 5 i.d2 b6 1 6 'ire2 i.. f5 1 7 li e 1 c4 1 8 i.c2 ll e 8 1 9 i.a4 i.d7 20 i.xd7 'f¥xd7 (Black is almost totally paralysed) 2 1 li:Jh4 f8 22 �f3 g8 23 �e3 f8 24 i.c3 ltl b7 25 �d4 f6 26 lle6 li:Jc5 27 gf i.xf6 28 ll xf6+ 1 -0 Thomas-Markwell, corres 1 964-5 . d6! 12 1 2 g 4 d 6 transposes into A of

section 3, Opening the diagonal for the bishop on c4 and at the same time blocking the development of Black's queenside surely offers

'f¥xd6 'f¥d5 (22)

li:Jf5

22 B

A safe and easy way out for Black here is 1 4 ... ltle7 1 5 'i!Vd6 (otherwise 1 5 . . . d5) 1 5 . . . ltlf5 and draws by repetition. This option indicates that, unless White can come up with something special in B ( 1 3 i.g5), 10 . . . 0-0 is not really a bad move, but just less challenging · than 1 0 . . . ltl e7 . But can Black try for more than the draw from this· . diagram? The test of this is: 14 15

d6 ltlg5!

A very dangerous tactical idea which makes the draw option at move 1 4 look the prudent course. The variations are: a) 1 5 ... i..x g5 16 i.. x g5 and now:

. 32 Grtco Gambit: Section 4 16 'irxg5?? 1 7 'ti'xf7+ l1xf7 1 8 :S:e2 mate. a2) 16 i.e6 1 7 E:.xe6 '§'xg5 1 8 E:.xd6 ± . a3) 1 6 'ti'c7 1 7 1t'd3 i.d7 1 8 g4 h6 1 9 i.f4 ± (Keres ) . b) Since ' a ' is unsatisfactory and f7 must be defended somehow this only leaves 15 ll:\ h6, ugly as it is. Estrin then suggests 16 h4 i.f5 without assessmen t, i.e. oo. Black can perhaps hold out in the event of 1 7 ll:\xf7 ! ? E:. xf7 (not 1 7 . . . i.xe4?? 1 8 ll:\xh6++ 'it>h8 1 9 '§'g8+ and mates) 1 8 i.xh6 i.xe4 1 9 1t'xf7+ 'it>h8. Stronger i s 1 6 ll:e l ! , which is good for White because he threatens both ll:\ e4 and i.f4 and is ready to meet 1 6 . . . i.f5 with 1 7 ll:\ xf7.

al)

...

...

Moller A ttack 10 . . . 0-0 23 B

. . .

...

B

13

...

Conclusion: l O ... 0-0 is playable, with a quick draw in prospect (in line A). But nobody is going to play it, since 10 . . . lb e7 is clearly stronger.

i.g5 !?

An en terprising attempt to avoid the possible draw in line A. 13 ll:\ g6 It might s eem that Black can break out at once with 13 i.xg5 1 4 lL\ xg5 d5 1 5 i.xd5 lL\ xd5 1 6 'irxd 5 h6, but this provokes the forcing line 1 7 lbxf7! E:.xf7 1 8 E:.ae l @f6 1 9 l:i:e7 'ifxf2+ (this is necessary: after 19 . . . g5 20 E:.xf7 1t'xf7 21 E:.e8+ 'it>g7 22 'ife5+ 'it>g6 23 't!t'e4+ 'it>f6 24 1i'd4+ 'it>g6 25 \i'd6+ Black loses his queen) 20 'it>h l g5 2 1 E:.xf7 'ti'xf7 22 E:.e8+ 'it>g7 23 't!t'e5+ 'it>g6 24 'ife4+ 'it>h5 25 @e2+ 'it>g6 , when White can take a draw by perpetual check. ...

14

This is Estrin's recommendation. However, Black counters with 14 ll:\e5. White is struggling to show compensation for his gambit.

'ttd5 (23)

Peel-back proceeds by flashing past 10 li:e l (which can be taken for granted) to consider what alternatives to 9 . . . i.f6 Black has. The analysis so far makes it plain that Black does not need alter­ natives to 9 . . . i.f6. So prospective defenders could skip the next section. For gambiteers it may provide a little light relief.

Section 5 Moller Attack: Black's 9th M ove Alternatives 1 2 3

e4 li:lf3 i.c4

e5 ll:\c6 .tc5

Moller A tt�ck - Black 9ths 33

Greco Gambit: Section 5 4 5 6 7 8 9

c3 d4 cd lbc3 0-0 d5 (24)

lbf6 ed

.ib4+ lb xe4 .txc3

u 8

longer, though also in White's favour) 14 nxe5 lbf5 15 "ti'h5 + g6 1 6 ll xf5! ±± - Unzicker. These variations are rather more illustrative than analytical, but the basic message that Black has a hard time keeping on the board comes through loud and clear. Rather more problematic, though also considered ropey, is: d) 9 .. .ia5 10 de, and d l ) 10 . . de 1 1 "ti'a4 .tb6 1 2 .ixf7+ 1Jxf1 13 "ti'xe4 with a strong attack. Euwe gives the plausible follow-up 1 3 . . . 'i!fd5 14 lbg5+ ct18 1 5 lbxh7+ �g8 1 6 lbf6+! gf 1 7 9g6+ 1Jf8 1 8 't!fxf6+ 'it.'g8 19 't!fg6+ 'it>f8 20 .ih6+. d2) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 't!td5 lbd6 12 .id3 .tb6 13 .i xh7+ ! 'it>xh7 14 Wh5+ 'it.'g8 15 lbg5 lle8 1 6 .if4 and Black is defenceless. d3) 10 . . b e 1 1 lbe5 (an improve­ ment on 1 1 Wa4 .tb6 12 .i xf7+ 1Jxf1 13 't!txe4 d5 1 4 1!t'a4 lle8 + Maroczy-Janowski, Carlsbad 1 907) 1 1 . . lbd6 1 2 't!fg4 't!ff6 ( 12 . . . 0-0? 1 3 .i.g5 and 14 .if6) 1 3 b4 (25) d3 1) 13 ... 't!rxe5 14 .if4 't!ff6 1 5 nae l + 'it>f8 1 6 .ig5 't!rg6 1 7 .ie7+ 1;g8 18 .ixd6 .ib7 1 9 1!t'xd7 h5 20 .tc5 ±± was given in Schlechter's Handbuch. d32) 13 . .ixb4 14 .ib2 and it seems the attack will win through. For example, 14 . . . lbxc4 15 lb xc4 't!rg6 1 6 llfe l +! 'it.'f8 (or 16 . . . .txe 1 1 7 nxe l + 'it>d8 1 8 .txg7) 1 7 1!t'h4 f6 1 8 lb e 5 fe 1 9 l:txe5 ±± Euwe. .

.

lbe5

9

In the end this proves inferior to 9 . . . .if6, but it should not be dismissed too casually, if o nly because it was once recommended by Emanuel Lasker. Weak are: a) 9 lba5 10 .id3 lbc5 1 1 be lbxd3 12 "ti'xd3 0-0 1 3 lbg5 f5 1 4 d6! c6 1 5 ll e 1 ±. b) 9 .. lbe1 1 0 be ltJd6 (on 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I ll e 1 lb f6 1 2 d6l is regularly given, though the consequences are hardly very clear) 1 1 .ib3 0-0 1 2 c4 b6 1 3 .ib2 lbe8 1 4 .ic2 lbg6 15 "t!fd3 d6 16 lbd4 ± Moller. c) 9 . lbd6 1 0 de ( 10 be is also good) 10 . . .if6 (or 10 . . . lb xc4 1 1 'i!fe2+ 'i!fe7 12 Wxc4 .ia5 1 3 .ig5 ±±) 1 1 lle l + .ie7 ( 1 1 . . . f8 12 cb .ixb7 1 3 .ib3 ±) 12 .ig5 f6 1 3 lbe5 ! fe ( 1 3 . . . 'it.'f8 1 4 cd .ixd7 15 lbxd7+ 11rxd7 16 .ih4 resists ...

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

-

Moller A ttack - Black 9ths ·

34 Grtco Gambit: Section 5 13 B

26 w

1 3 b4 was one of Moller's original ideas and you can see from this var iation, and also 'b' above, that after 9 d5 White would like to put his queen's bishop on the long diagonal. H ence the virtue of 9 . . .i.f6. .

10 11

be 'it'd4

lt:lxc4 f5

I foll o w the tradition of treating

this as the main line , although the simpler · and less compromising 11 0-0 1 2 1!t'xd4 ll:ld6 is pr obably a better choice, e.g. : a) 13 1!t'f4 lt:le8 1 4 d6!? cd 1 5 i.a3 b6 1 6 Iife 1 i.b7 17 lt:ld4 't!t'f6 1 8 1i'xf6 li:l xf6 1 9 lt:lf5 lUeS 20 ll:l xd6 Iixe l + 2 1 llxe 1 i.d5 of Kopylov­ Levenfish, USSR Ch . l 949 is + or ...

=f.

b) 1 3 1!t'd3 ll:le8 1 4 c4 d6 15 .i.b2 f5 (26) This is Mieses-Suchting, Vienna 1 908. Structurally the position is identical to variation 'a' in the note to Black's 9th, but her e Black has an extra tempo ( . . . d7-d6) and his knight is on a more relevant square. After 1 6 litfe 1 White's more active pieces offer fair

compensation for the pawn . By contrast, 1 1 lLl cd6? is bad: 12 't!t'xg7 Wf6 13 "t!kxf6 lt:lxf6 1 4 Ii e l + lt:l fe4 ( 1 4 . . . � f8 1 5 .i.h6+ g8 16 Iie5! lt:l fe4 1 7 I::t e l f5 1 8 lie7 is catastrophic) 1 5 lt:ld2 f5 1 6 f3 0-0 1 7 fe lt:lxe4 1 8 lt:lxe4 fe 1 9 Iixe4 d 6 2 0 .i.h6 ± . ...

12

1!t'xc4

Definitely not t he miscombina­ tion 1 2 i.g5? lt:lxg5 1 3 'tWxg7 I::t f8 ! 1 4 ll:lxg5 't!t'f6 H Schlechter­ Lasker, London 1 899 . 12 13 14

d6 0-0

lt:l d4

f3 lt:lc5 This is Lasker's recommenda­ tion, covering the sensitive spot at e6. If instead 14 lbf6, then 1 5 i.g5 h6 16 .ih4 (Schlechter later tho ught that 16 .ixf6 followed by doubling on the e-file was even more convincing) 1 6 . . . g5 1 7 .i.f2 �g7 1 8 llfe 1 ± Schlechter-Meitner, London 1 899 . ...

15

lie1

Also good is 15 .ia3 b6 16 .ixc5 be 1 7 ltl c6 1!t'f6 1 8 llfe 1 i.d 7 1 9 I::t e 7 ll f7 20 liae 1 ± Karaklajic­ Alexander, Belgrade 1 952.

Greco Gambit: Section 5

Moller A ttack

�h8

15

Black is under severe pressure 11 nd cannot, for example, contem­ plate 1 5 . . . lle8? 1 6 i.. a 3 llxe l + I 7 Zlxc 1 lt:la6 1 8 'ii'b 5 ± Schlechter­ M c:it ner, Vienna I 899. 16 i. a3 b6 (2 7)

-

Bladk 9ths 35

llae 1 ). 1 I . . . 0-0 may be less precarious, but even here 12 'ii' xe4 li:ld6 I 3 't!t'd3 lLle8 I 4 c4 d6 I 5 i.b2 looks to be pleasant for White (splendid bishop plus lead in development to compensate for the pawn). Peel-back: Our examination of the

Moller Attack ends here, since we now proceed to retract 9 d5. That move has introduced us to a wealth of sharp play and exciting possibilities. But it is not quite good enough against the sternest defence. Romanov-Kotkov, corres I 963-4 continued 1 7 lt:l c6 i.. a 6 1 8 'ii' d4 •g5 I 9 i.xc5 de?! ( I 9 . be!? ­ usually the better recapture) 20 •e5 i.. c4 2 I llad i ±. However, as Estrin points out, Black should have played 18 . . . 'ii'f6! I9 'ii' x f6 l:Ixf6 20 lle7 i.c4 with chances for both sides. For that reason one should surely prefer the immediate 17 i.xc5 be I 8 lLlc6, when White has more than enough for the pawn, e.g. I 8 . . . 1Wg5 I 9 lle7 i.b7 20 llae i 'ii' d 2 2 1 ll7e2! 'it'g5 22 lLla5 i.. c 8 23 f4 fol lowed by 24 1!rb5 :t±. . .

Conclusion: After 9 lt:le5 Lasker's intended defence with I I . . . f5 and 1 4 . . . lt:lc5 gives White a strong bind for his pawn , and it is not difficult to find moves that intensify the pressure ( i.a3xc5, lLl c6, :e7, ...

Sectio n 6 Stei n itz ' s 9 be and

1 0 .ia3

28 B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

e4

e5

ll:lf3 i. c4

lLl c6

c3 d4 cd lLl c3 0-0 be (28)

lLl f6

.ic5 ed .i b4+ lLlxe4 .ixc3

Steinitz's 9 be and 10 .ta3

36 Greco Gambit: Section 6 dS

9 10

.ta3 Nowadays everyone knows that this is insufficient because Black can counter with 10 . . . de 1 1 lle I .ie6 ! 1 2 l'lxe4 't!rd5 followed by . . . 0-0-0. I have found it interesting to trace the path by which this conclusion was reached. It is surprising how long it took those two great players Steinitz and Lasker to get there ! de

10

Black is not obliged to accept the sacrifice. Schlechter played 10 .te6 against Steinitz at Hastings 1 895 and after I I .tb5 lbd6 12 .txc6+ be 1 3 �e$ 0-0 14 lbxc6 "t!lf6 Steinitz blundered a way the exchange with 15 ll b l .if5 1 6 llb3? .id7 1 7 �b4 .ta4 (eventually Y2-Y2. 49). Lasker was prompted to write in the tourna­ ment book: 'Black declines the acceptance of the sacrifice with doubtful judgment'. ...

11

lle1 (29)

· From this position we will examine two games played in the

1 896 Lasker-Steinitz world cham­ pionship match. In the very first game of the match Lasker followed the analysis that he had given when annotating Steinitz-Schlechter: 11 rs 12 �d2 �f7 13 �xe4 fe 1 4 ll xe4 "t!lf6 1 5 We2 .tf5 (not 1 5 . . . .ie6? 1 6 lle l ll he8 1 7 d5 :±± ) 1 6 1Wxc4+. Lasker's note in the Hastings tournament book ended: ' 1 6 llf4 h5 1 7 1Wxc4+ 'it?g6 1 8 d5 �e5 1 9 1Wxc7 llhe8 and although Black is two pawns behind for the piece, and may lose a third, his attack is excellent'. It is difficult to imagine that 16 1Wxc4+ immediately can be anything more than a marginal i mprovement . 1 6 . . . Wg6 1 7 lle3 llae8 1 8 llae l lit xe3 19 llxe3 h5 20 h3 h4 2 1 d5 lbe5 22 't!rxc7 lbd3 23 1Wxb7 .tc8 ! . This forces a simplification after which two of the three pawns White has for the piece are doubled and isolated. White's chances are gone. 24 't!rc6 "t!Vxc6 25 de lbf4 26 lle7 a6 27 c4 c;Pf6 28 lia7 lbd3 29 .te7+ c;Pe6 30 llc7 �e5 3 1 .ib4 llg8 32 .ie7 g5 33 c5 �f7 34 f3 lle8 35 ¢>f2 llxe7 36 lil:xc8 c;Pd5 37 lla8 lbe5 38 c;Pe3 lb xc6+ 39 c;Pd2 a5 40 litf8 lle5 4 1 f4 gf 42 ll xf4 llh5 43 c;Pe3 lbe5 44 lla4 lbc4+ 45 c;P£4 c;Pxc5 0- 1 . I n spite of the one-sided char­ acter of this first game of the match Steinitz must have believed that ...

Greco Gambit: Section 6 t here was a way for White to prosper, for he repeated the first eleven moves with his next White i n the third game. I wonder what i m provement he had in mind. 1 7 d5!? or 18 lig3+!? or some new try at move 23? Lasker knocked o u t all t he se possibilities. He had discovered the definitive solution, u l i ne in which Black runs no risks

nt all:

ll 12 13 14 15

lixe4 1We2 lbeS lb xc6

Steinitz's 9 be an d 10 .tal 37 21 f4 .td5 22 g3 �b7 23 h3 'it'b5 24 �h2 llg6 25 't!tc2 f6 26 .ih4 .ic6 27 g4 'it'd5 28 'it'f2 h5 29 g5 fg 30 .txg5 h4! 3 1 llfl lig8 3 2 'it'd2 a5 33 a4 lie8 34 f5 lig8 ! (31)

.ie6 ! 1Wd5 0-0-0 l:r.he8 1!Vxc6 (30)

A classic zugzwang. 35 l:r.e I 'it'xf5 36 l:r.e5 1!t'f3 37 d5 'it'g3+ 38 �h I 1!t'xe5 39 de+ �xc6 0- 1 .

Black's king is completely safe, h e has no weaknesses and an extra

pawn. I f simplification occurs, the bishops of opposite colour would make a draw likely. Although B l ack is not in the slightest danger of losing, a win is no easy task. A constructive plan for Black m ust be based upon attack on the white king - a plan that Lasker carries out with marvellous skill. 1 6 lie l l:r.g8 ! 17 l:r.e5 b6 1 8 .tel g5 ! 1 9 l:r.xg5 llxg5 20 .ixg5 llg8

Conclusion: O ne might be able to come up with some slight improve­ ments on Steinitz's play in this game. But searching for them would be a thankless task. For all practical purposes Lasker refuted 9 be. Peel-back: 8

.. .txc3 has served Black so well in the preceding sections that retracting it borders on ingratitude . But we ought to see what happens if Black takes with the knight instead, if only because White's subsequ�nt attack­ ing possibilities provided the original rationale for the Greco Gambit. .

8 . . lbxc3

38 Greco Gambit: Section 7

Section 7

8

. . .

lb xc3 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

e4

e5

ll::l f3

ll::l c6

J.c4 c3 d4 cd ll::l c 3 0-0

J.c5 ltJ f6 ed -'.b4+ ll::l x e4 ll::l x c3 (32)

.

Black certainly ought to play 9 . . . d5! here, but since the analysis of the apparently suicidal alter­ native is very interesting (and has not been done properly in the past!) we shall sub-divide into: A 9 . . . J.x c3 B 9 d5! Weaker than either is 9 -'.e7? 1 0 d5 lba5 (or 1 0 . . . ltJb& l l d6! cd 1 2 ll::l g5 J.xg5 l 3 1!fd5 0-0 14 J.xg5 ±t) I I d6! with: a) l l J.xd6 12 lie ! + J.e7 1 3 -'.xf7+ '.txf7 14 \i'd5+ '.tf& 1 5 ltJg5 \i'e8 1 6 'it'xa5 ±. b) ll cd 1 2 -'. xf7+ '.txf7 1 3 't!fd5+ 'it>f& 14 ll::l g5 1!fe8 1 5 't!fxa5 ±. ...

...

...

...

A 9

J.xc3

We need to sub-divide again: This was the only move that Greco analysed. To modern eyes it looks dangerously co-operative, allowing White to recapture with a tempo-gaining attack on the bishop. Prospective Black defenders who, like me, see no defect in 8 . . . -'.xc3 could afford to bypass this section . It is curious, however, that in spite of three and a half centuries of buffeting 8 ll::l xc3 has not been conclusively refuted. Black could also play 8 0-0 (intending 9 ll::l xe4 d5), but then he must reckon with 9 d5, transposing into a line mentioned in section 5 after 9 . . . J.xc3 1 0 be ll::l e7 I I li e ! ltJf6 1 2 d6. . . .

...

9

be

AI 1 0 1!t'b3 A2 10 J.a3

1 0 't!fb3 is the old move, indeed Greco's move, whereas 10 .ta3 is supposed to be a complete crush. As we'll see, it isn't necessarily so . . . AI 10

't!fb3

d5

This move, suggested by Bern­ stein in the 1 930s, is Black's only hope. Greco already showed how to demolish the alternatives: a) 10 .txal is incautious and greedy and, not surprisingly, gets blasted after I I -'.xf7+ '.tf& 1 2 .ig5 ll::l e7 1 3 ll::l e 5! (Steinitz's 1 3 liha l i s simple and strong, but Greco's coup is more decorative). ...

8

Greco Gambit: Section 7

Various pretty mates may now ensue. For example, one of G reco's composed gamelets rattles o n 1 3 . . . d5 1 4 't!kf3 .tf5 1 5 .te6 g6 1 6 .th6+ 'it>e8 1 7 .tfl mate. 1 3 . . . ..t xd4 1 4 .tg6! d 5 1 5 't!kf3+ .tf5 1 6 ..txf5 .txe5 1 7 .te6+ is another < i reco variation. Of course , it would be amazing if such things were to occur in a modern tour­ na ment game, but studying these possibilities can help in sharpening y o u r tactical teeth. h ) 10 .txd4 1 1 .t xfl+ �f8 1 2 .ig5 .tf6 1 3 li ae 1 li:Je7 1 4 .i.h5 h I ) 14 li:Jg6 15 li:Je5 ! li:Jxe5 16 li xe5 g6 17 .i.h6+ .tg7 18 lif5+ gf 19 'irfl mate - Greco. h2) 14 dS 1 5 lixe7 't!kxe7 1 6 li e ! i.e6 ( but here 1 6 . . . i.xg5 1 7 li xe7 .txe7 1 8 't!i'xd5 g6 also fails to 19 �e5 'it>e8 20 li:J xg6!) 17 li:Jd4 ±± G reco again. What we have here relegated to a footnote was the 1 7th century main line. If Black had to enter it, the Greco Gambit would be amply justified. But he doesn't and it isn't. 11 .txdS 0-0 12 .txf7+ (33) ...

...

...

-

. . .

li:Jxc3 39

It might appear that 12 li:xti loses at once to 1 3 li:Jg5 , but for what it is worth Black then has 1 3 . . . .i.e6 , meeting 14 'i¥xe6? with 14 . . . 'ird7 and 14 li:Jxe6 with 14 . . . li:Jxd4. H owever, i t isn't worth much since 1 4 't!t'xc3 ! lif6 1 5 li:Jxe6 lixe6 1 6 'irc4 leaves Black in serious trouble - the threat of d4-d5 is terrible. On the other hand, 12 \t>h8 1 3 1!fxc3 lixfl 1 4 1/tb3 ! i s also very pleasant for White, e.g. 1 4 . . . lif5 1 5 li e 1 .td7 16 d5 li:Ja5 ( 1 6 . . . li:Je7? 17 i.g5 ±± Euwe-van den Kar, Amsterdam 1 928) 1 7 ti'c3 ± - Euwe. White even has another route to advantage in AI via 1 1 'it'x c3 de 12 dS! li:J e7 1 3 i.a3 0-0 14 li fel as in Rajaram-Averbakh, Calcutta 1 965. After 14 . . . li:Jxd5 1 5 1!t'xc4 c6 16 .txf8 'ffx f8 1 7 liab 1 Black's two pawns do not adequately compensate for the exchange because of the activity of the white rooks. ...

...

A2 10

.t a3 (34)

This is universally adorned with a ' ! ', and -is often used as a teKt-

8 . . lilxc3

40 Greco Gambit: Section 7 book example of how a lead in development can lead to a decisive attack. Aitken first suggested the idea in the British Chess Magazine in 1 937 and he supplied a very attractive variation. However, I cannot agree that it is really superior to 10 1!t'b3 . Before seeing why, let u s deal with the defensive attempts that have made 10 .ta3 see m so appealing: a) 10 d5 1 1 .ibS .t xa l l 2 l:!. e l + .te6 1 3 "i!Va4 1!t'b8 (horrid, but even more so is 13 . . . li b8 14 ltleS ±± Corte-Bolbochan, Parana 1 946) 1 4 li:leS a6 I S "i!Vb4! \!i'd8 and now best is 16 .txc6+ be 1 7 1!t'b7 (Wade). b) 10 li:le7 I I 't!fb3 dS 1 2 't!t'xc3 de 13 life l .ie6 1 4 .i xe7 Wxe7 and now both I S dS 1!t'xdS 1 6 l:!.ad l and I S li:lgS h6 1 6 li:lxe6 fe 1 7 dS are winning. c) 10 d6 1 1 lic l .taS 12 't!i'a4 a6 (otherwise he drops a piece to dS) 13 .idS .ib6 1 4 li xc6 ! .td7 l S l:!.e l + (or I S li xd6 when I S . . . cd 1 6 l:!.e l + is a transposition and 1S . .txa4 1 6 l:!.e l + "it'e7 1 7 l:!.xe7+ �xe7 1 8 li xb6+ i s ±±) I S . . . Wf8 1 6 lixd6 ! (35) ...

...

...

. .

.

This is the main line of Aitken's analysis. A fter 16 . cd 17 .txd6+ �g8 White can probably close the show in various ways. But simplest is best, so I like the unfussy 1 8 "it'b3! ( 1 8 . . . .te8 1 9 lixe8+ 1rxe8 20 ltleS; 1 8 . . . .ie6 19 lixe6). Aitken, going for an analytical beauty prize, thought up 1 8 li:lgS g6 1 9 .txf7+ Wg7 20 .ie5+ �h6 2 1 li:le6 .txa4 22 .ig7+ and White delivers mate in six, which is indeed pretty but is longer and allows more distractions (e.g. 21 . . . .txe6 22 .txe6 should win, but is not exactly crystal clear). Variations a-c are all you get in most manuals, which regularly and culpably ignore the best defence, proposed by Bernstein: . .

10

'ti'f6!?

Keres now gives 1 1 l:!. c l .ib4 1 2 .txb4 li:l xb4 1 3 li e l +, claiming advantage for White - a sequence and assessment repeated by Euwe. White undoubtedly has good com­ pensation for the two pawns sacrificed, but after 13 . .. �d8 there is nothing particularly clear. A plausible continuation is 14 'ti'd2 aS (not 14 . . . li:lc6 1 5 li:lgS, nor 14 . . . d S I S 'ti'xb4 dc l 6 't!i'xc4) 1 S a3 dS ­ Black's position remains highly precarious and I would not like to have to defend it. But it is questionable whether White has i mproved on the solid ± he gets in AI. B 9

d5!

8

Greco Gambit: Section 7 A sensible move, after which White has more trouble proving his case. 10 11

cb

llel+

de li:J e7 (36)

36 w

. . .

(}JxcJ 41

a) Everyone says that 13 fg 1 4 "t!t'xc4 i s too risky for Black. T o be honest, I am not at all sure about this, but it would be foolhardy to test the verdict in a serious game. b) 13 o-o 14 'it'xe7 fg 15 1Wc5 1Wf6 worked in Schwarz-Teschner, Ber­ lin 1 949 : 1 6 li:Jxg5 'it'xf2+ 1 7 �h l .i.g4 1 8 1Wxc4+ �h8 1 9 lUI .te2! 20 lt:lf7+ �g8 21 lt:lh6++ h8 22 lt:lf7+ and draws. Euwe, however, has a significant improvement on this in 16 dS ! , defending f2 along the diagonal and ready to meet . . . g4 or . . . .i.g4 with li:Jf3-e5. White has a definite advantage then: the black bishop is awkward to develop and the pawns at c7 and g5, as well as the 'spare' at c4, are vulnerable. ...

...

12

.tgS !?

don't think that White can extract more than a draw from 12 'f¥e2 J.e6 1 3 .i.g5 ( 1 3 li:J g5!? might be tried) 1 3 ... 1Wd5 1 4 .txe7 �xe7 1 5 1!t'c2 f6 1 6 li:Jg5 ! (Bogolju­ bow's idea) 16 . . . fg 17 l:t e5 'it'xd4 18 llae 1 llae8 1 9 l:txe6+ d7 20 l:i:d1 (not 20 lii: xe8? llxe8 2 1 ll d l �c8 ! ) 2 0 . . . 'ffx d l + 2 1 "it'xd l xe6 22 "t!fg4+ �f6 23 h4 etc. 12 13

.tf4 (37)

37 B

f6 "t!fe2!?

White offers a piece. The quieter 13 .tf4 0-0 14 'ife2 li:Jd5 1 5 1!t'xc4 �h8 (Leonhardt-Perlis, 1 908) causes no problems and is probably + in view of Black's better pawn structure. 13

14

i. g4

A grey move - neither White nor Black will be fully satisfied with the outcome. But it is hard to find better:

Can Black slip out of t he pin and establish his knight on d5? a) 14 'it'd 7 15 'it'xc4 .txf3 16 gf c6 (after 16 0-0-0 1 7 .txc7 Wxc7 1 8 'ffx c7+ �xc7 19 :xe7+ Black loses a pawn, but whether White wins the ending after 19 . . ll d7 is another matter) 1 7 :litac l ! fB 1 8 b5 cb 1 9 9b4 aS 20 'tlrd6 l:[d8 2 1 •..

. . .

.

42 Greco Gambit.� Section 7

8 . . . lbxc3

llc7! ± Estrin-Klaman, Leningrad 195 1 . The power of the doubled rooks on the seventh is decisive after 2 1 . . . 'i!xd6 22 .i.xd6 llxd6 23 llexe7. b) 1 4 'it>f7 15 'ifxc4+ li:Jd5 1 6 l£ld2! (Sakharov's move; i t i s far better than 1 6 .i.xc7? Ie c8 and White is losing a piece - 1 7 .i.xd8 l::t x c4 18 i.a5 b6 etc) 1 6 . . . .i.e6 1 7 .ig3 l::t e8 1 8 lt:Je4. You will find these moves in lots of books, with the conclusion that White has the better chances. So far as I know, this has not been tested in practice. The pressure on the c-file plus the irritating threat of li:Jc5 probably does count for more than the strong knight on d5.

analysis of the Greco Gambit. For the next peel-back will remove 7 . . . lt:Jxe4 8 0-0 (both clearly best) , thus taking us back to consider alternatives to 7 li:Jc3.

...

Conclusion: 8 ... ltlxc3 is just about playable so long as Black continues (after 9 be) with 9 . . . d5 ! . In that case it seems that, with accurate play, White can preserve just a slight advantage (line 'b' from the last diagram). 9 . . . i.xc3? is really just an old error from the glory days of the Greco Gambit when defences were feeble. It does seem to me that Greco's original rejoin­ der 1 0 Wb3 has been unfairly slighted. It is just as effective as the 20th century's 1 0 i.a3 . However, White players nowadays are not likely to have the pleasure of testing the relative merits of these two moves.

This

section

concludes

our

Section 8 H a s Anyone Got Any Better I deas 1 We have seen that the Greco Gambit proper with 7 ltl c3 does not work out well for White. He can no longer indulge in the Moller Attack with the comfort of the drawing line of section 2 in reserve - our main line with 1 3 . . . h 6 (section 1 ) i s the mausoleum of that hope. But perhaps one can play in the spirit of Greco without sticking to the letter of his pioneer­ ing quill. The general objective is to play an early d4 in the I talian Game, to get an open position with early contact in which White stands ready to regard the survival of one of his pawns as a mere trifle. Let us see if there is any promising way of doing this from the position after 1 2 3 4 5

e4

e5 ltlc6

li:Jf3 .i.c4

.i c5

c3 d4

ltlf6 ed (38)

We need to look at White's 7th move alternatives after 6 cd .i.b4+ , but there are a couple of other 6th move options too. So let's do some fission:

A ny Better Ideas? 43

Greco Gambit: Section 8 38 w

A 6 e5 8 6 0-0 C 6 cd

the aid of . . . .tg4, whereas it is not easy to suggest an active plan for White. Some examples: a) 9 lt:l c3 0-0 1 0 .te3 and Black can happily choose between a 1 ) 10 . . . f6 1 1 ef lb xc3 1 2 be 't!Vxf6 1 3 't!Vb3 lbe7 1 4 0-0 h6 1 5 lbe5 c6 1 6 .te2 lbf5 + Steinitz-Schiffers, Vienna 1 89 8 . a2) 1 0 . . . .tg4 l l h3 i.h5 1 2 't!Vb3 .txf3 13 gf lt:lg5 =t= Stanciu-Urzica, Rumanian Ch 1 974. b) 9 i. e3 0-0 10 1Wc2 lt:le7 1 1 lt:lc3 ll:lxc3 12 be i.f5 1 3 i.d3 is the . line given in ECO. This is a grey variation, hardly in the Greco spirit. =

A

e5

6

White does not lose a pawn in this line, but he does lose control of d5 and must beware of Black's potential f6 break. d5

6

After 6 . . lt:le4? 7 i.d5 Black is forced to sacrifice, insufficiently, with 7 . . . lbxf2 8 xf2 de+ 9 g3 cb 1 0 i.xb2 ±. White's develop­ ment is too good for that to work . lt:le4 7 .tb5 .

8

cd

Compare this with the Two Knights Defence with 5 e5 (Scotch Gambit, section 3). 8 lt:lxd4 is a transposition of sorts in which White has substituted c3 for the more useful i.e3 : 8 . . . i.d7 9 .txc6 be 10 0-0 f6! + Boutteville-Larsen, Le Havre 1 966. 8

i.b6

Black has, if anything, the better prospects. He can arrange . . . f6 or think of attack on d4 with

8

6

0-0!?

Here is something more worthy of the gambiteer's favours. Unfor­ tunately, there is one line ( Black's best ! ) in which the queens are soon exchanged, leaving too little muscle for the attack to carry clout. 6 lt:lxe4! Other m oves have poor creden­ tials : a) 6 ... de 7 lbxc3 is a Scotch/Goring Gambit that Black has already misplayed. b) 6 d6 7 cd .tb6 gives White his ideal centre, and yet it cannot be said that the position is entirely clear after 8 lbc3!? .tg4!?. c) 6 . . . d3 7 b4 .tb6 8 a4 a6 9 e5 d5 10 .txd3 lb e4 1 1 't!Vc2 .tf5 1 2 .ta3 ± Estrin-Korelov, Leningrad 1 970. Estrin says that 7 . . . i.e7 is better, ..•

44

Greco

Gambit: Section 8

although it see ms that White can also co unt on a certain advan tage after 7 . . . i.e7 8 e5 lt:\g4 9 l:l e l d6 10 ed cd I I i.x d3 ::!; Estrin Bily ap, Varna 1 969. d) 6 ... d5 7 ed lLixd5 8 l:le l + ..ie6 9 lt:\g5 0-0 lO 't!ld3 g6 I I Il xe6! fe 1 2 1!fh3 'ii'e 7 1 3 't!lxe6+ 'ti'xe6 1 4 lt:\xe6 ± Estrin Let ic, corres 1967-9. -

-

7

cd

d5!

At first sight 7 . ..ie7 looks a safe move, but th e ga mbiteer gets just the sort of position he wants after 8 d5 lt:lb8 9 lil e l and now: a) 9 . lt:lf6 10 d 6 ! cd 1 1 �c3 and Black is unlikel y to survive the savage attack, th e natural ! ! . . . 0-0 running into 1 2 lil: xe7! 'ii'x e7 1 3 .i.g5 ±. b) 9 �d6 lO i. d3 0-0 1 1 �c3 (39) .

.

39 B

.

.

...

An ideal posit ion for Italian gambit-play. Wh i t e s central pawn pushes have given his pieces full freedom of action , whereas Black's cluttered forces are unable to intercede on thei r king's behalf: �a6 1 2 .t f4 .i.f6 1 3 l:l e3 bl) ll .i.xd6 cd 1 5 .i.c2 b6 1 6 lt:\c5 1 4 9d2 .i.b 1 1 7 lilae 1 .i.xc3 1 8 be f5 19 ltld4 g6 20 J.xf5! gf 2 1 lile7 llf6 '

...

Any Better Ideas? 22 'ii'g 5+ lilg6 23 'ti'h5 llg7 24 �xf5 1 -0 Corden-Perkins, British Ch 1 969. b2) 1 1 . lt:\e8 1 2 'ife2 (quite possibly 12 d6!? �xd6 1 3 i.xh7+ �xh7 14 ll xe7 't!lxe7 15 �d5 'ti'd8 16 �g5+ might force a win - but I will let someone else prove it, if it does ! ) 12 . . . i.f6 1 3 lt:\e4 ± Estrin­ Konovaltsev, Moscow 1 969 . ..

de 8 9 't!lxd8+ 10 ll:dl+ 10 . 'it>e8 1 1 ll e l

de �xd8 .i.d 7

f5 12 lL!c3 recovers the pawn with the better game, for 12 . . . �b4? fails to 1 3 �xe4 �c2 1 4 � d6++! . 11 .i.e3 (40) .

.

40 B

Does White have compensation for his pawn? In a number of games Black played the natural 1 1 . . 'it>e7, stepping out of the pin, and after 1 2 �a3: a) 1 2 ... e3 13 be lt:lxc3 14 Ji[d3 lt:la4 1 5 lile 1 J.e6 a 1 ) 1 6 lt:\b5? J.c4 1 7 .i.g5+ 'it>f8 H Honfi-Sax, Budapest 1 970. a2) 16 lDd4 lbxd4 1 7 .i.xd4 is quite good for White according to Estrin ( 1 7 . . . lithd8 1 8 �b5 c6 1 9 lDd6). .

Greco Gambit: Section 8

Any Better Ideas? 45

b) 1 2 ... i. e6 b l ) 13 lilb5 Ithd8 1 4 li:Jxc7 nxd l + 1 5 lixd l It d8 1 6 lixd8 lil xd8 + Ravinsky. b2) Estrin suggests 13 lidc1 , though it hardly looks more than However, in Kopylov-Jezek, Potter Memorial corres 1 974-7, Black innovated with 11 . lie8!? and after 1 2 li:Ja3 c3 13 be li:J xc3 14 lld3 lile4 1 5 llad l If.e7 White's 16 lild4? lile5 just lost a second pawn. Messere suggests that 1 6 lil e l intending f3 would have been ' more prudent' , but things have already gone wrong when the gambiteer has to grovel like that. Black's rook holds everything when it gets to e7 and the king on d8 defends c7. The gambit pawn starts to look rather more than a mere trifle ! =.

.

.

c i.b4+ 6 cd Everybody knows that 6 ... i.b6? is bad but you need to understand the reason why: 7 d5! lile7 (7 . . . lilb8 8 e 5 li:Jg4 9 0-0 d 6 1 0 e6! ±, or 7 . lila5 8 i.d3 c5 - to stop b4 9 d6 ±) 8 e5 lilg4 9 d6! (41) ..

4/ B

-

a) 9 . .. cd 1 0 ed a l ) 10 ... ..txf2+ I I �e2 lilg6 1 2 h3 lil4e5 13 lil xe5 lilxe5 14 'it>xf2 lilxc4 1 5 't!Ve2+ ±±: . a2) 1 0 . . li:Jg6 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 ..ig5 lilf6 1 3 lilc3 h6 1 4 't!fd3 ! 'it>h7 1 5 i.xf7 ll xf7 1 6 lil e 5 ±±: . b) 9 lilg6 1 0 i.g5 ! f6 1 1 e f g f 1 2 't!Vd5 li:J4e5 1 3 li:Jxe5 li:Jxe5 14 ..th6 ± intending i.g7xh8 . c) 9 . . . lil f5 1 0 i.g5 c l ) 10 . . ..txf2+ 1 1 �e2 li:Jd4+ 1 2 �fl ! and White wins o n material. (Check it out ! ) :2) 1 0 .. f6 I I 't!id5 li:J fh 6 1 2 ef lilxf6 13 't!ke5+ ct>f8 14 i.xh6 gh 1 5 0-0 cd 1 6 't!t'f4 �g7 1 5 lilh4 ± . d ) 9 .. lil x f2 1 0 't!fb3 0-0 1 1 .i g5 .

...

.

.

.

±±.

These variations were put to­ gether by Zak in 1 936. They would not be easy to find at the board. Now the reader is primed. But to get the chance to play them? You should be so lucky ! 7 'it>fl!? (42) This introduces the Krakow Variation, which takes its name from some analyses published in 1 909 by members of the Krakow chess club (though in fact it had been known and played long before). Even if Black does not take the pawn on offer at e4, we can treat it as an honorary gambit. To renounce castling rights like this ought to be reckless enough to qualify. There is a respectable move that does not make a genuine gambit

Any Better Ideas?

46 Greco Gambit: Section 8 out of the opening, namely 7 i.d2. It used to be possible to recommend this as a viable way of playing (as Harding and I did in The Italian . Game), but in the light of the following game it emerges that White must then be prepared to accept an early draw: 7 . . . i.xd2+ 8 lLlbxd2 d5 9 ed lLlxd5 10 'it'b3 lLla5 ! (previously 1 0 . . . li:Jce7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 Ilfe l or 1 2 li:Je5 led to positions that were either ;!; or and which White could at any rate keep working on) 1 1 1i'a4+ lLlc6 (Black's point would now be revealed by 1 2 li:Je5?! 0-0 13 li:J xc6 1!re8+! +. Meanwhile, there is ... lLlb6 to worry about , e.g. after 1 2 0-0 0-0. So:) 1 2 "ti'b3 li:Ja5 1 3 1Wa4+ li:Jc6 \-1 - \-1 Miles-Korchnoi, South Africa 1 979.

1 0 i.g5 i.e7 1 1 d6! cd 1 2 li:Jc3 0-0 1 3 Il e 1 li:Jc6 1 4 'ti'd2? lLle5 ! and 0- 1 , 25. But 14 'it'h4! gives a tremendous attack, e.g. 14 . . . h6 1 5 Ilxe7 li:Jxe7 1 6 i.xf6 gf 1 7 'it'xh6 with the end i n sight) 9 1Wd4 li:Jf6 1 0 i.g5 (43) 43 B

=,

42 B

7

d5!

Spoilsport! White would enjoy the game much more if Black would only take the pawn: 7 . .. lLlxe4 8 d5 li:Je7 (Znosko-Borovsky thought 8 . . . li:Jb8 was better and played it against Schwarzmann, Paris 1927: 8 . . . lLlb8 9 1i'd4 li:Jf6

White has intense pressure and Black's chances of prolonged survival are slim. Some examples: a) 1 0 . . . c5 1 1 1i'e3 d6 12 i.xf6 gf 1 3 li:Jbd2 0-0 1 4 li:Je4 lLl g6 1 5 'it'h6 Ile8 16 lLlg3 ct>h8 1 7 h4 ± Vatcek. b) 1 0 . . . lLlg6 1 1 lLl bd2 b 1 ) 11 . . . h6 was Marshall-Burn, Ostend 1 905, a brilliancy prize game: 1 2 lite l + ct>f8 1 3 i.d3 ! i.e7 (better 1 3 . . . i.xd2 14 i.xd2 d6 ± Marshall) 1 4 i.xg6 hg ( 1 4 . . . fg 1 5 li:Je5 'ti'e8 1 6 'it'd3 ±± ) 1 5 li:Je5 ! fg 1 6 li:Jxg6+ 'llf7 1 7 Il xe7+ xg6 1 8 'ti'd3+ 'll h 6 1 9 h4! g4 ( 1 9 . . . 1Wxe7 20 hg++ 'l;xg5 2 1 lLlf3+ g4 22 'it'g6+ f4 23 g3+ and mate next move) 20 h5 li:Jxh5 21 'it'f5 1 -0. If . 2 1 . . . g6, 22 Ilxh5+ gh 23 "t!i'f6 mate . Remembering the famous story of Marshall-Burn, Paris 1 900 - 1 -0 so swiftly that Amos never

Greco Gambit: Section 8

got to light his pipe - one wonders how many puffs he enjoyed in this game ! b2) 1 1 . j_e7 1 2 ll e 1 0-0 1 3 h4 d6 1 4 h5 li)e5 1 5 h6 li)xc4 1 6 li) xc4 lii: e 8 1 7 hg .if5 ( 1 7 . . . wxg7 1 8 llxe7 ! 1Vxe7 1 9 .ixf6+ 'ft'xf6 20 lii: h7+) 1 8 lt:l h4 .ie4 19 li)d2 .i c2 20 li) hf3 wxg7 2 1 .ih6+ �g8 22 li)e4 .ixe4 23 ll xe4 .if8 24 ll f4 .ixh6 25 ll xh6 ±±: Bartmanski­ Broch, corres 1 9 1 0. ..

8 9

ed

lt:lc3

li:lxdS .ie6 (44)

44 w

If this is the best the Krakow Variation has to offer against sensible defence, is there any hope that it can supply the life-giving injection that Italian gambit-play needs? The most striking feature of the position is that, whereas Black is achieving a normal development, the same cannot be said for White, thanks to 7 Wfl . Possible continuations are: a) 10 .ixdS .i xd5 1 1 1Ve2+ .ie7 1 2 "iWb5 ( 1 2 li) xd5 'ft'xd5 l 3 .ig5 does not stop Black from castling) 1 2 . . . .ixf3 1 3 gf 'i!Vxd4 + Lenz-Schlage,

A ny Better Ideas? 47

1937. b) 1 0 'it'b3 lt:la5 1 1 'it'a4+ .id7 12 .ib5 li) xc3 13 bc ( 1 3 .ixd7+ "t!txd7 14 'it'xb4 "t!tb5+) 1 3 . . . .ixc3 1 4 lil b 1 c 6 1 5 'it'c2 cb 1 6 'it'xc3 0-0 + Levenfish. c) 10 'it'e2 c l ) 1 0 .ixc3 1 1 be li)xc3 1 2 1!t'e l li)d5 1 3 ..ta3 a6 ( 1 3 . . . "iWd7 1 4 .ib5 ! ) 1 4 lil c 1 "@'d7 1 5 'ire2 �d8 (a strange move , but at least it is better than 1 5 . . 0-0-0? 16 j.xa6) 16 lt:le5 lt:lxe5 1 7 de li)f4 1 8 'it'f3 .ixc4+ 1 9 lhc4 li)e6. Bartmanski­ Batik, corres 1 9 10, continued 20 �e2!? We8 2 1 lld l 'it'b5 +. However, the suggested improve­ ment 20 g3 !? (Scacco! 1982) may make the position playable for White, in view of the awkward spot the black king is in. c2) 1 0 ... 0-0 looks sensible, but is it good for Black? White can reply 1 1 .ig5 with the idea that 1 1 . . . li)xc3 1 2 b e ..txc4 1 3 'it'xc4 j.e7 14 h4 is t. So 1 1 .ig5 1i'd7 and I think Black is better. ...

.

I find it difficult to feel very enthusiastic about the Krakow Variation, but this may just reflect a conventional p rejudice. The correct assessment of the 1 0 "t!te2 line (variation 'c' from our last diagram) is in doubt. It would bear further investigation. There is nothing else in this section that White has any hope of making much of against an adequately prepared defender.

2 1 2 3

4

E VA NS

GA MBIT e4 lt:Jf3 .tc4 b4 (45)

45 8

e5 lt:Jc6 .tcs

Captain William Davies Evans ( 1 790- 1 8 72) invented this ga mbit about the year 1 824 whilst skipperi ng a postal steam packet in service between Milford Haven and Waterford. Its first public appearance was a brilliant success against Alexander McDonnell (given on p . 5 6), played in the Subscription Rooms, St Martin's Lane, London in either 1 826 or 1 827 (exact date unknown). I t rapidly achieved popularity and was acclaimed as 'a gift from the gods to a languishing chess world'. The gambit appealed as a way of rej uvenating the open Italian style of play, which had been in danger of becoming extinct through the influence of Philidor's more positional, pawn-structural methods. The Evans was a favourite of most of the great attackers of the 1 9th century - e.g. McDonnell, La Bourdonnais, Morphy, Anderssen and Chigorin - and was regularly played at the highest level until the turn of the century. However, those staunch masters of defence, Steinitz and Lasker, even tually turned the tide of opinion against the gambit, and its appearances in 20th century tournaments have been sporadic. The main area of debate is acceptance with 4 .ixb4 5 c3 .i a 5 (sections 1 -7). The big theoretical question is: should Whife choose 6 0-0 ..•

49

Evans Gambit: Introduction

or 6 d4 ? (The rare alternative 6 't!Vb3 is the subject of section 7.) Chigorin used to favour 6 0-0 , but the usual verdict of theory has been that it is not so good as 6 d4 because it runs up against the defence recommended by Lasker in Common Sense in Chess (6 . . . d6 and 7 . .ib6, offering to return the pawn for an ending in which Black has the bishop pair and sounder pawns). Yet if you look at the end result of the Lasker Defence (section 1), you will see that it is not at all clear who stands better. In fact White seems to have rather a good plan of campaign (in volving �h I and f4-f5 ) , so that I am tempted to recommend this as the appropriate contemporary handling of the Evans Gambit. However, I discovered a coun ter-plan for Black ( 1 7 . . f5 !?). All I can say i s that further investigation and practical tests are needed to resolve the relative chances. 6 d4 enables White to sidestep Lasker's Defence. But in so doing it encounters other defensive lines not available against 6 0-0. In particular 6 . ed 7 0-0 tt:lge7 (section 4) is a sound and reliable response. Black achieves the advance . . . d5 and thus gets freedom for his pieces. So which is the better option 6 0-0 or 6 d4? In the words of some anonymous author of graffiti, ' I used to think I was indecisive . . . but now I am not so sure' . What I am confident of is that the Evans is a fully viable gambit that still poses open questions. It should be noted that in practice White's results are rather good. Even against strong defence White should retain fair compensation, one of the chief reasons for t his being that the pawn offered is a wing pawn , the absence of which is not such a telling factor in the middlegame. No introduction to the Evans would be complete without the score of that most famous of games, the ' Evergreen': .

.

.

.

-

An de rssen-Dufresne B erlin 1 85 1 1

e4

2

lt:l f3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

.ic4 b4 c3 d4 0-0 't!V b3 e5 lit e1

e5 tt:lc6

.i c5 .ixb4 .ia5 ed d3?! 't!Vf6 \!Vg6

.

50 Evans Gambit: Introduction

1 0 lld l intending .txd3 is a good alternative. 10 11 12 13

14 15

.ta3 't!Yxb5 't!Ya4 lbbd2 tbe4

tbge7 b5!? llb8 .ib6 .tb7 t!rf5?

Safer was 1 5 . . . d2 1 6 tbexd2 0-0 - Lasker.

16

17

.ixd3 tbf6+!?

t!rh5

Simply 17 tbg3 ! was strong. 17 18 19

ef llad1 !?

gf llg8

Although this leads to a brilliant finale it has been suggested that 19 .ie4 is really a better move . 19 'fi'xf3 (46) 1 9 . . . llg4! would have prevented the beautiful mating finish by ma king g8 available to the black king. 46 w

20 21 22 23 24

tbxe7 llxe7+ ! �xd7 't!Yxd7+ ! We8 .if5+ �d8 .td7+ .txe7 mate

Pleasing as this game is, it i s not of much use as a guide to how the gambit is li kely to fare i n mod er n practice. So I offer a more recent example of successful gambiteering.

Evans Gambit: In troduction 51

Wedberg-Kaiszauri Stockholm 1 981 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e5 lLlc6 i.c5 i.xb4 i.a5

e4 lLlf3 i.c4 b4 c3 d4 't!t'b3

d6

lLlxd4

7 . . . "@'d7 is the main line of section 6.

8 9

lLlxd4 i.xf7+

ed

�f8 de

0-0 10 For 10 . . . "@'e7 see note 'c' to Black's 7th in section 6.

11 12

e5 i.xg8?!

't!t'e7

Wedberg (whose notes in Informator 33 I am drawing on) pointed out that he missed the chance of 12 ed! 't!t'xf7 13 1i'a3 ±.

12 13

ed

Ilxg8 "@e5!

Black goes for cou nterplay. 1 3 "@xd6 was dubious because of 14 i.a3 c5 1 5 Il d 1 and if 1 5 . . . 1!t'b6? 1 6 Ild8+ "ii'x d8 1 7 i.xc5+ ±±. 13 . . . cd 14 lLl xc3 is also promising for White - the extra pawn at d6 is a weakling.

14 15

i.e6 lLl a3 1i'xb1 (4 7)

47 8

IS

i.dS?

An aggressive move, but B lack's position proves to be too loose.

52 Evans Gambit: Introduction Wedberg gives 1 5 . . . 'iPf7! 1 6 '4!t'f3+ '4!t'f5 1 7 '4!t'xf5+ i.xf5 1 8 llJc4 i.b6 19 i.f4 = .

16 17 18

'ii'b 5 etJc4! lDe3

i.b6 1!t'e4

Since it would be suicide for Black to open the f-file to a discovered check this holds everything together for White. M eanwhile Black's game falls apart as he lacks defensive cover on the a3-f8 and b 3-g8 diagonals.

i.c6 cd Against 19 . . . g5 White has 20 i.a3 �g7 2 1 l:I ac l i.d4 22 :ii xc3 ! . g6 20 i.a3 21 :ii ad1 .,Pg7 'iPh6 22 'ii'x c3+ �h5 23 i.cl 24 etJd5! 1 -0 18 19

'ii'b3

There is a neat mate after 24 . . . i.xd5 25 "t!t'h3+ '4!t'h4 26 g4. Sectio n

1

6 0-0: lasker's Defence 1

48 w

2 3 4 5 6 7

e4 lDf3 i.c4 b4 c3 0-0

d4

e5 lDc6 i.c5 .i.xb4 i.a5 d6 i.b6 (48)

Advocated by Lasker in his lectures of 1 895 (from which stemmed the book Common Sense in Chess) , this sequence is almost universally regarded as a reason for preferring 6 d4 to 6 0-0 . As we shall see, it is not quite as simple as that. The moves 6 . . . d6 and 7 . . . i.b6 were n ot i n themselves novel. Strictly speaking, the only new move that Lasker came up with is an untested l Oth move innovation in a line that I am going to treat as a side-variation. However, Lasker deserves the credit for the basic idea behind the defence , which is to offer White the chance of recovering his gambit pawn, but at the cost of exchanging queens and going into an ending in which Black has every prospect of

6 0-0: Lasker's Defence 53

Evans Gambit: Section 1 e xploiting the weakness of White's queenside (split a- and c-pawns). 8

de

It is interesting to note that Ch igorin's final try (in the year before his death) against the Lasker line was the non-committal K i.e3. I doubt whether this is active enough to justify the gambit . After 8 i.e3 ll:lf6 9 ll:l bd2 0-0 1 0 't!fc2 ed I I cd d5 Black emerges with a satisfactory develop­ ment - though the consultation ga me Chigorin and Protoklitov v Znosko-Borosvsky and Levin, St. Petersburg I 907, ended in a draw in 32. 8

9

de 't!t'b3!

This manoeuvre enables White

t o avoid the main obj ective of the

Lasker Defence, which is achieved in the variation: a) 9 't!fxd8+ li:lxd8 10 ll:lxe5 and now: a I ) 10 i.e6 1 1 ltld2 (significantly weaker is 1 I i.a3 f6 ! 12 i.xe6 ll:l xe6 1 3 ll:lc4 i.c5 ! =!= JohnerZauer, corres l 9 I 2) l l . . . ll:le7 1 2 i.a3 ( 1 2 a4! ? - Levenfish) 12 . . . f6 13 ll:ld3 li:lg6 1 4 llab 1 �f7 (Chigorin himself thought that 1 4 . . i. xc4 1 5 ll:lxc4 ll:le6 was more accurate) I5 i.d5 lle8. This was Chigorin-Pillsbury, London 1 899 (0- l , 47), regularly given as =F . However, I am inclined to agree with Romanovsky, who claimed that 1 6 � would be quite accepta ble for White and ...

that all the damage was done by miscalculation. Chigorin played 16 c4? c6 ! 17 i.xe6+ li:lxe6, overlooking that the intended I 8 c 5 would fail to I 8 . . . ll ed8 . a2) 10 ... ltlf6 was Lasker's innovation. It isn't clear to me that this is much stronger than 1 0 . . . i.e6. But the resulting endgame is unlikely to appeal to the gambiteer, and no body has cared to put Lasker's judgement that it favours Black to the test. One should note the sacrifice b) 9 i.xf7+ � xf7 10 ll:l xe5+ is unsound. It led to a quick win in Ecke-Schonewald, corres I968: 10 ... �f8? I I i.a3+ ll:lge7 I2 "it'f3 + I -0. But this was a bit silly since it had been known for a long time that Black beats off the attack with IO . . . 'it>e8! 1 I "it'h5+ g6 I2 li:l xg6 ltlf6 1 3 't!t'h6 llg8 and if I 4 ltlh4 ltl e5 ! . Finally, there is nothing to excite White in: c) 9 ll:lbd2 "it'f6 10 i.d5 ll:lge7 1 1 h3 h6 12 ll:lc4 0-0 13 ll:lh2 lld8 1 4 ll:le3 i.e6 =t= Marshall-Blackbume, Ostend 1 905.

9 10 11 12 13 14

.

,'' "' �J tl\11( � .,,41

i.g5 �d5 �xe7 i.xc6 li:lxe5

"it'f6 't!fg6 ll:lge7 �xe7 't!fxc6 't!fe6

So far as I know, the only move played or analysed. But 14 . . � not obstructing the bishop on c8, seems a reasonable alternative.

ICA� �l

.

54 Evans Gambit: Section

I

1 5 llJc4 (49) In his newspaper column Chigorin analysed 1 5 'fi'a3+, with the conclusion that White has good chances after either 1 5 . . . 'ct>f6 1 6 lbf3 or 1 5 . . . c 5 1 6 f4. However, Levenfish's 15 'ird6! spoils all that. After 16 'it'xd6+ cd 1 7 lbc4 ..te6 or 1 6 l:id 1 'fi'xa3 1 7 llJ xa3 ..te6 Black has a very favourable ending. White needs to keep the queens on the board. ...

How to assess this position? The fundamental directive for White is: avoid exchanges ! H is correct plan is to play 'ct>h 1 and f4, aiming to use a spatial plus to blot out the black bishops. In particular White should try to get in f5 in order to hinder the development of Black's queen's bishop. To illustrate the chances I shall give two games in full. In the first White adopts the correct plan and scores a stirring success - against a rather ineffective B lack defence. In the second White permits

6 0-0: Lasker's Defence exchanges and finds himself in the sort of ending that Black hopes to enjoy in this variation .

ft. Skotorenko-Ahman, corres 1976:

1 5 . . . .ic5? (a waste of time) 1 6 llJbd2 li[d8 1 7 'ct>h l ! 'ct>f8 1 8 f4 'ti'e8 1 9 llJf3 b6 20 f5 ! h6 2 1 li[fe l a5 22 'ti'c2 .ia6 2 3 lb ce5 'ct>g8 24 lbg4 .if8 (24 . . . .id3 25 'ti'c l ) 25 'it'f2 ± 'ti'd7 26 'irg3 (White has worked his queen and two knights into attacking positions before B lack's long-range bishops have got any target in their sights) 26 . . . 'ct>h7 2 7 f6 .ic8 2 8 h3 c 5 29 'trh4 't!Vc7 30 llJg5+ 'i!?g6 (50)

3 1 lL!xf7 ! 'i!?xf7 32 fg ..txg4 (32 . . . ..txg7 33 l:tf l + 'ct>g6 3 4 lil£6+! ±±) 33 gf'it'+ lhf8 34 't!txg4 'it'e5 35 lii: a b l litab8 36 lit fl + 'ct>e7 37 litfd l 'ti'e6 3 8 "it'g3 1 -0. 2. Botterill-Williams, Pontypridd 1 978: 1 5 . . . :Sd8 ! l 6 1i'b4+ 'ct>e8 27 1 7 llJba3 't!t'e7 1 8 't!kb2 .ie6 1 9 llJxb6 a b 2 0 lbb5 i.c4 2 1 litfe 1 ..txb5 ! 2 2 "ti'xb5+ 'ct> f8 2 3 li[e2 'tlfc5 24 't!t'xc5+ be (51)

6 0-0: Lasker's Defence 55

Evans Gambit: Section 1 51 w

(No doubt I could have made a better job of defending this endga me, but weak pawns at a2 and c3 make it pretty horrific) 25 f3 l:la3 26 llc l c4 27 llb2 b6 28 ll l c2 lld3 29 Itb4 lldxc3 30 ll xc4 llxc4 3 1 li xc4 c5 32 ll c2 �e7 (White has contrived to eliminate one of his weaknesses, but the other still remains and he faces a protected passed pawn and the more aggressive rook. H ere I really should have seen that 33 lld2! was essential) 33 �f2? l!i>d6 34 llb2 l!i>c6 35 l!;>g3 c4 36 l!i>f4 'tt>c 5 37 h4 c3 38 Ite2 'it>d4 39 e5 �d3 40 Ite3+ �d2 0- l . Since I have learned about this position the hard way I ought to be able to draw some useful conclusions. The moral seems to be that with the right plan White may prosper, but without it he will certainly flounder. IS lld8 is definitely Black's best move. But has he any way of countering ...

White's plan? As White's main threat is to play f5 it must be rational to consider fore­ stalling this with . . . f5. Thus from diagram 49 we arrive at the sequence: lld8 IS �f8 I6 � bd2 f5!? I7 �hi This might look rather risky, but I have not found any serious objection to it. As a last point, you should note that a variation sometimes given as leading to equality after 1 5 . . lld8, namely 1 6 't!t'a3+ �e8 1 7 lt:lxb6 cb, is in fact bad for White. Black continues with . . . 't!t'e7 and . . . i.e6 with easy play against the weak White pawns. .

Conclusion: Against the Lasker Defence White should as a general rule avoid the exchange of queens, which usually leads to a favour­ able ending for Black. Our main line introduces a complicated two knights v two bishops middlegame. With chances for both sides? That depends on what happens after 1 5 . . . lld8 1 6 �bd2 � 1 7 �h i and here I cannot sensibly say much more than that further investigation is required . ..J' -

Our next section takes up the issue of whether 7 . . . i.b6 is really superior to the alternatives that it superseded.

6 0-0: 7 . . .tg4/ i.d7

56 Evans Gambit: Section 2

.

Section 2

The major alternatives are:

6 0-0: 7 i: g 4 a n d 7 . . . ·

l 2

3 4 5

6 7

e4 lt:lf3 .i. c4 b4 c3 0-0 d4 (52)

A 7 ... i. g4 . . .

B 7 . . . .t d7

�d7

These moves were the subject of some sharp theoretical exchanges in the 1 892 Chigorin-Steinitz world championship match. The 20th century, perhaps overly impressed by Lasker's level-headed pragmatism, has completely neg­ lected them.

e5 lt:l c6 .tc5

.i.xb4 i.a5

d6

A

7 i. g4 W hite has tried three moves here:

52 B

Al 8 \!fb3 A2 8 .i.b5 A3 8 \!fa4 Al 8

1!t'b3

.i.xf3!

A distinct improvement on 8 'W'd7, which was played in Evans­ McDonnell, London 1 826 (or 7?). This game is of great historical interest, as it is the first Evans Gambit on record, possibly the first public outing for the Captain's inspiration: 8 . . . \!fd7 9 lb g5 lt:ld8 10 de de 1 1 .i.a3 lbh6 12 f3 .i.b6+ 1 3 ct>h l i.h5 1 4 lld l 1!t'c8 1 5 ll xd8+! 'W'xd8 1 6 lt:lxf7 ! 'W'h4 ( 1 6 . . . .txf7 17 .txf7+ lt:lxf7 1 8 \!fe6+ and 16 . . . lt:lxf7 1 7 .i.b5+ - everything ends in mate ! ) 1 7 t!t'b5+ c6 1 8 1!t'xe5+ ct>d7 19 1We6+ ct>c7 20 .td6 mate. It is understandable that this game should have made a deep impression on the loser, who was to convince La Bourdonnais of ...

Black has other moves apart fro m the 7 . . . .i.b6 of the Lasker Defence. 7 ed 8 cd .i.b6, for example, would transpose into the old 'Normal Position' of the 5 . i.c5 defence, examined on p. 8 2. 7 . lt:lf6 is a natural developing move which here turns out to be bad because of a fa miliar tactical theme in the Evans: 8 \!fa4 ed (White threatened to win a piece with 9 d5, and if 8 . . . a6 9 .i.d5 i.b6 10 de lbg4 1 1 ed ±) 9 e 5 ! lt:ld7 1 0 i.g5 f6 1 1 ef lt:lxf6 1 2 lt:lxd4 ± (a convincing piece of analysis that Cafferty and Harding ascribe to Richter and Teschner). ...

..

.

.

6 0-0: 7 . . j_g41 i.d7 57

Evans Gambit: Section 2

.

the value of the gambit in the next decade. 9 gf White is well advised to steer clear of 9 � x f7+ 'it>f8 (compare our main line in the Goring Gambit) 10 gf i.b6 1 1 i. xg8 ll xg8 12 d5 li:Ja5 13 't!Vc2 g5 + (Levenfish and Sokolsky). ed 9 li:Je5 1 0 "ti'xb7 1 2 'it>h1 This sets the little trap I I li:Jxf3? 1 2 "ti'd5 ±±. But in view of what follows 1 1 cd!? may be a better winning try. ...

11 12 13 14

15

litb8 't!Va6 "ti'xc4 li:Jxc3 't!Vxc3

llJ xc4

de i.xc3 "ti'f6 (53)

l:lxe7+! ..t>xe7 20 "ti'xc7+ 'it>e8 21 'it'c8+ 1i'd8 22 1!1c6+ "t!fd7 23 WaS+ V:! - \.'2 . Such a sweetly reasonable, delicately balanced little game !

A2 8

�b5

This was Chigorin's choice in the l st, 3rd, 5th and 1 3th games of his 1 892 match w i th S teinitz.

8

ed

9 cd i.d7 li:J f6 10 �b2 In the 1 s t game Steinitz played the passive 10 . . . llJce7? ! and got into trouble: 1 1 �xd7+ 't!Vxd7 1 2 li:Ja3 li:Jh6 1 3 llJ c4 i.b6 1 4 a4 c 6 1 5 e5 ! d5 1 6 llJ d6+ ..t>f8 1 7 �a3 'it>g8 1 8 l:l b l li:Jhf5 (54)

53 w

This was Santasiere-Marshall, New York 1 926. Obviously 1 6 1t'xc7 allows a draw by 1 6 . . . Wxf3+ 1 7 ..t>g l "t!¥g4+ etc, s o Santasiere tried 1 6 e5!?. However, it led, in a very pleasant way, to the same outcome: 16 e5 de 1 7 lite l li:Je7 1 8 l:lxe5 l:lb5! 1 9

A famous and controversial position. Chigorin sacrificed with 19 li:Jxfi!? ..t>xfi 20 e6+ 'it>xe6 2 1 li:Je5 - a procedure which, though it led to success ( 1 -0, 3 1 ), might well be viewed as a piece of culpable over-exuberance when the simple and powerful 1 9 a5! was available. Lasker's comment was delicious: " Even the most

6 0-0: 7

58 Evans Gambit: Section 2 sympathetic critic would have to say that Chigorin fought with a corpse, gave him new life, and then killed him again." Actually, Chigorin's sacrifice can probably be justified by analysis (2 1 . . . 't!fe8 22 lite ! Wf6 23 .ixe7+! seems to be the critical line). But fortunately we don' t have to prove that, as Steinitz's moves are hardly likely to be repeated.

11

. . .

.ig41 .id7

14 d5! 0-0 1 5 .ib2 is ±.

9 10

gf cd (55)

ed

Chigorin's later suggestion of 1 0 .ib5 does not seem adequate to me after 1 0 . . . .ixc3 I I .ixc6+ be 1 2 1!Vxc6+ �f8 1 3 tl:l xc3 tl:le7 1 4 't!Vc4 d e 1 5 'ifxc3 tl:lg6 . 55 B

tl:la3?!

The 3rd and 5th games both continued 11 0-0 1 2 d5 and eventually ended in draws. By the time the 1 3th game was played Steinitz had realised that he could j ust take the e-pawn: 1 1 lbxe4 1 2 d5 lbe7 1 3 'ira4 .i.c3! + (0- 1 , 3 8). I find this pretty mystifying. Why did it take so long for the penny - or rather the pawn - to drop? And why 1 1 lba3? There are better moves, but I doubt whether any will suffice to revive 8 .ib5. .•.

...

A3 8

'W'a4

I n this position Black needs an antidote to White's threat of d5. But even if White does win a piece he may not win the game, as his broken kingside provides Black with the resource . . . 't!fxf3-g4 with perpetual check. The neatest resolution would be 10 'irf6! I I .ib5 'irxf3 1 2 .ixc6+ be after which the only point of dispute is who should give perpetual check ­ Black ( 1 3 'ii'x a5 't!fg4+) or White ( 1 3 tl:ld2 .ixd2 1 4 1i'xc6+ �e7 1 5 'irxc7+ g2 ll:\h4+ 1 9 'it;h3 , claiming an advantage for White after both 19 . . . lL!g6 20 1!t'b3 and 19 . . . 1!fxa l 20 'it>xh4 1!fxa2 2 1 ll:\d2 0-0 22 'ti'd4. At first I thought this must be potty. How could White be better when Black has rook and three pawns v bishop and knight and the white king is roaming on h4? But Chigorin has a point in that the black queen is right out of play on a2 in the last variation. So play � . .. 0-0 instead of 20 . . . !t'xa2 - with a totally unclear position . B i. d7 7 Advocated and analysed by 16

...

...

. . .

i.g41 i.d7 59

Alapin. It does at least guard against l!t'a4, though one might well suspect the move of being overly passive. Given such a quiet defence, White has many options. He could, for example, even try the extragavant 8 ll:\g5 ll:\h6 9 f4!?, with the idea that after 9 . . . ed 1 0 � ll:\ xd4! ? 1 1 ll:\xf7 ll:\xf7 1 2 'it'h5 0-0 13 'it'xa5 ll:\c2 14 i.b2 ll:\xa l l 5 i.xa l i t i s not at all easy for Black to combat White's diagonal pres­ sure. The moves usually considered - the moves actually played on the few occasions on which this variation has got on the board are:

Bl 8 !t'b3 B2 8 de

Bl 8

'ifb3

This is what Chigorin played in the 7th and 9th games of the 1 892 match, when Steinitz introduced 7 . . . i.d7 as an interlude in the 7 .. . i.g4 campaigns. It seems that Alapin had a hand in putting the world champion up to this, having supplied him with some private analysis. It would be interesting to know what Alapin's secret package, intended to dish his compatriot Chigorin's title bid, contained. I suppose the contents were not very explosive since the ' mine' turned out to be a damp squib Steinitz lost the 7th game and drew the 9th.

8

Wf6

60 /:.' vans Gambit: Section 2 8 . 'it'e7 is rather weaker because it gives White a later i.a3 with tempo: 9 de de 1 0 ll d 1 and now: a) 10 lidS 1 1 lld5 i. b6 1 2 i.b5 llJf6? ( 1 2 . . . f6 is necessary, but probably ±) 13 i.a3 ±± Chigorin and Saburov v Alapin and Schiffers, St Petersburg I 897. b) 10 ... 0-0-0 I I lt:l bd2 lt:lh6 1 2 i.a3 1Wf6 I 3 i.d5 was theory according to Keres, put to the test in Sko torenko-Timejer, corres I 976: 1 3 . . . i.b6 I4 lt:l c4 � 1 5 liab i i.g4 1 6 lld3 lt:l e7 I 7 i.xe7 'lrxe7 I 8 1!t'a4 �b8 I 9 llJfxe5 i.e6? ( I9 . . . i.c8 was called for) 20 i.xb7 ! ll xd3 (if 20 . . . �xb7 2 I llJa5+ Wc8 2 2 lbac6 ±± ) 2 l llJc6+ �xb7 22 llJxe7 llxe7 23 llJa5+ �c8 24 lt:lc6 lled7 25 1i'a6 mate. A nice example of sustained pressure in the Evans: Black, although formally developed, never got properly organized. ..

...

9 de de 10 lld1 1 0� 'it'g6 I I :adt looks an alternative worth investigating, if ever this variation comes back into favour.

10 11

h6

i.a3 The liquidation 11 i.xti+ 1!rxf7 1 2 1i'xf7+ �xf7 1 3 llxd7+ llJge7 1 4 �fl �e6 1 5 lld3 llad8 was pl ayed in Chigorin-Steinitz, 9th game, Havana 1 892, and is usually condemned because the position after Black's 1 5th is at least +, even

6 0-0: 7

...

k,g41 i.d7

though Chigorin hung on for a draw. White has problems with his queenside development. Of course, it would be far worse for White to try to recoup the pawn with 1 1 1!t'xb7?? since this loses the queen to I I . . . llb8 12 "t!Va6 llb6. 11 lld8 i.b6 1 2 lt:lbd2 13 i.dS (57)

All so far as in the 7th game of the I 892 match. Steinitz now played the inferior 13 . . . lt:laS?! and after 1 4 1i'b4! c5 1 5 'ft'b2 had been forced to make a most undesirable pawn move. He lost in 28 moves, but only after a truly vile blunder which is discussed in our section on 'The Evidence of Games' in the Introduction. A natural and better move, as Steinitz himself indicated after­ wards, was 13 . . . llJge7. The position remains difficult and complicated, though I must say that I cannot see what White has for his pawn, e.g. 1 4 llJ c4 0-0 - and

6 0-0: 7 . . .ig41 i.d7 61

Evans Gambit: Section 2

now what? 82

.

me what is wrong with 15 �) 14 . . llJa5 15 llJxa5 .txa5 1 6 ..txe 7 1Wxe7 1 7 1Wxb7 a6 1 8 I[fd 1 I[fb8 1 9 "i!t'xa8 lha8 20 .ixa8 .ixc3 2 1 ll:ab 1 oo. Yet surely only Black can hope to win legitimately from this position. .

8

9 10

de liJbd2 .idS (58)

de 'fi'f6

58 B

Conclusion: 7 . . . .ig4 is a forcing

There is a second pawn on offer, but it would be foolhardy to grab it: a) 1 0 . .ixc3 1 1 I[b l .ixd2 1 2 'fi'xd2 (Hardin's original 1 893 analysis of this line gave 12 llJ xd2 lbd8 1 3 llJc4 c6 14 .ia3 ±. But that too nearly resembles a help­ mate) 1 2 . . . I[b8 1 3 lbg5 lbh6 1 4 .ia3 'it'f4 1 5 'fi'xf4 ef 1 6 I[fc l f6 1 7 nxc6! ± Ljundqvist-Kjellander, 2nd World Corres Ch, 1 956-9. A more prudent evolution would be: b) 10 ... llJ g e 7 I I 'fi'b3 0-0 12 lbc4 h6, and now White can try 1 3 a4, which is indeed the sole feature that distinguishes this position from the one we reached in B I . An untested piece of analysis by Levenfish ploughs on: 13 . .. .ib6 14 .ta3 ( 1 4 aS .ic5 15 .t xc6 llJ xc6 1 6 "i!t'xb7 I[ fc8! + is the staildard note here. But it isn't obvious to ..

move, after which both players will be swept along on a tide of threats and counters. Whether White chooses 8 'it'b3 or 8 'it'a4 the appropriate outcome seems to be a draw. 7 . . . .td7 is much more difficult to assess and there is too little practical experience with the move to support any firm conclusion. It is not at all clear that these moves are inferior to 7 . . . .tb6. If Black knows the analysis and is content with a draw, 7 . . . .ig4 is probably the safest choice. For winning pur­ poses 7 . . . i.b6 or 7 . . . .id7 would have to be preferred. Peeling back, we can take 7 d4 to be the only continuation that merits consideration after 6 . . . d6. So Black's 6th move alternatives are next on the agenda.

Section 3 6 0 - 0 : Black's 6th M ove Alternatives

1

e4

e5

2 3

lbf3 i.c4

lbc6

.ic5

6 0-0: Black's 6ths

62 Evans Gambit: Section 3

4 5 6

b4 c3 0-0 (59)

59 B

Given the high esteem in which the L asker Defence is held, alternatives to 6 . . . d6 have vanished from the board and from the mind. So this section is a sort of lost property office with a few abandoned variations waiting dis­ consolately on the shelves for someone to come along and pick them up. What have we got in store? The records show: A 6 ... .liJge7 B 6 ... 1!Vf6 c 6 ... .liJf6 A .llJ ge7

6

7

7 8 9

.i.xb4 .i.aS

.llJ gS

dS .liJxdS

A s this ends oo , is it possible to suggest something stronger? a) 9 .llJ xf7!? �xt7 1 0 't!Vf3+ �e6 1 1 .i.a3 .i.b6 1 2 li e ! .llJ a5 1 3 ll xe5+ �xe5 14 d4+ �e6 1 5 g4 (Morphy­ Ford, New Orleans 1 858) fails to Maroczy's 1 5 . . . c5 ! b) 9 .WhS!? seems strong to me. If 9 . . . g6 1 0 't!Vh6 threatening both 1Wg7 and d4, and if 9 .. . 1!Vd7 White has a choice between 1 0 't!fxt7 + ( = , I think), 1 0 .i.a3, 1 0 d4 and 10 .liJxh7 ( oo, but I think probably good for White: there is a threat of .liJ f6+ and Black will have to renounce castling rights). 9

h6

O therwise White is winning: a) 9 . . ed? 10 .llJ x t7 xt7 1 1 1¥f3 + with a devastating attack. b) 9 . 0-0 10 de .i.e6 1 1 't!Vh5 h6 1 2 .llJ x e6 fe 1 3 .i.xh6 ! ±. .

.

.

10

de

The move that has been analysed, but 10 .llJ x f7!? �xt7 1 1 1!t'f3+ �e6 12 .i.a3 must surely be pretty strong now that Black has played the irrelevant . .. h6 rather than the useful . . . .i.b6 of Morphy­ Ford.

-This ought to be the try, since

10

7 d4 ed would transpose directly

11

into the next section. If that were the best, it would undermine any argument for preferring 6 0-0 to 6 d4.

ed d4

i.xdS

hg .i.e6 !

I f 1 1 . . . .llJ xe5 1 2 lle l f6 1 3 .i.xg5 ( ±± Unzicker). 12 13

i.xe6 lhd1

1¥xd1 fe

Evans Gambit: Section 3

14

.t xgS

6 0-0: Black's 6ths 63

lbxeS (60)

60 w

�xe7 1 4 d6+ f8 1 5 'i!Vb4! ( 1 5 lbxe5 f6 1 6 liJf3 .tc5 ! had been played in the 1 5th game, which Steinitz won) 1 5 . . . f6 1 6 .tb3 g6 1 6 lbc4 with a totally winning position for White. However, see the section in the general intro­ duction on 'The Evidence of Games' . Against 7 h6 Chigorin proposed to play 8 .te3 with the idea 8 . . . .tb6 9 de liJxe5 10 liJ xe5 1!Vxe5 1 1 .td4! . More incisive is 8 de lbxe5 9 liJxe5 'i!fxe5 1 0 1!t'b3 1!t'h5 1 1 e S ! (Ciocaltea­ Brzozka, Polanica Zdroj 1958) Black cannot get his pieces out. Compare the very similar situation in Goring Gambit Section 3, variation A . ...

Harding and Botterill ( 1 977) sa id 1 5 � ;!;, but this assessment is probably wrong because of 1 5 . . lbc4 when White has serious problems with the dominated knight on b l and roo k on a l . However, I think that the gam­ biteer can rejoice in the improve­ ments suggested at moves 9 and 10. B 'ii'f6 6 Steinitz showed a stubborn attachment to this move, which cost him dearly. .

7

d4

lbh6

This - would you believe it? was intended as an improvement on 7 liJge7, which Steinitz had played in no less than eight games of his 1 889 match against Chigorin. Chigorin won the eight-game match-within-a-match +4, 1 , -3. The last of these eight and 1 7th of the match went 7 ... lbge7 8 d5 lbd8 9 \ta4 .tb6 I 0 .tg5 'ii'd 6 I I lba3 c6 1 2 ll ad l '@'b8 1 3 i.. x e7 ...

=

8

.tgS

1!t'd6

Less greedy is Bogoljubow's suggestion 8 'itg6 9 d5 liJ b8 1 0 .txh6 \txh6 1 1 lbxe5 0-0 1 2 d6 lbc6. Vasyukov and Nikitin then give 13 liJg4 'i!Vg6 14 llel " and White stands bette r" (all repeated in £CO). But this is rubbish, since now that the bishop on aS is protected Black will just play 13 . . . 'i!Vxd6. There is no need for White to play 1 2 d6. Simply U .i.d3 intending either liJc4 or lbg4 (depending on whether Black plays 12 . . . d6 or 12 . . . c6) is good. ...

10

dS \ta4

11 12

liJ a3 .te2 (61)

9

lbd8 .tb6 c6

6 0-0: Black's 6ths

64 Evans Gambit: Section 3 6/ B

62 B

It is astonishing that Steinitz persisted in defending such hideous positions. But he was unable · to improve on 12 . . . i.c7 1 3 �c4 1!Vf8 14 d6! i.xd6 1 5 �b6 llb8 1 6 'it'xa7 when Black is in a bad way, as sh own by: a) 16 ... lbg4 17 �h4 lbe6 1 8 i.xg4 �xg5 19 �f5 �e6 20 llfd 1 i.c7 2 1 l2J a8 ±± �xa8 2 2 \!fxa 8 'it>d8 23 Itxd7+! 'it>xd7 24 I!d l + l -0 Gunsberg-Steinitz, 1 2th match game, New York 1 890- l . b ) 1 6 . l2Je6 1 7 i.c l ! �g8 1 8 i.a3 c5 1 9 I!ad l �f6 20 i.c4 i.c7 21 l2Jd5 ± Chigorin-Steinitz, tele graph match 1 890- 1 . ..

c

l2Jf6 6 This looks considerably more sensible than A or B. Indeed, if it had not been for Lasker, it would probably have become main line· theory in the Evans. 7 d4 (62) �xe4 Others: a) 7 ... ed allows White to launch a full-scale assault with 8 i.a3 (be tter than 8 e 5? d 5 9 i.b5 as

Morphy played against Anderssen in their 1 85 8 match) 8 . . . d6 9 e5 ! and now: a l ) 9 . . . de 10 't!Vb3 "@d7 I I lilei 'it'f5 1 2 i.b5 �d7 1 3 \!fd5 ! i.b6 14 l2J xe5 l2Je7 15 l2Jxd7 ! 'it'xd5 1 6 l2J f6+ ++ Steinitz-Plihal, Vienna 1 862. From such play as this who could foresee the gritty old master who would defend variation B? a2) 9 l2Jxe5 10 l2Jxe5 de I I 'i!t'b3 1!Vd7 1 2 lle l e4 1 3 l2Jd2 i.xc3 I 4 l2Jxe4 i.xe i I S �xf6+ g f I 6 I! xe l + 'it>d8 1 7 't!Vf3 f5 1 8 1!Vf4 f6 I 9 \!fh6 ± Levenfish . a3 ) 9 . . . l2Je4 1 0 e d l2J xd6 (perhaps 10 . . . cd!? is better) I I lle I+ �e7 1 2 l2Jg5 0-0 1 3 't!Vh5 i.f5 I 4 l2Jxf7! l2Jxf7 15 llxe7 ± Levenfish. b) 7 ... 0-0 8 i.a3 and now: b l ) 8 ... d6 9 de l2Jxe4 1 0 i.d3 l2Jc5 1 1 i.xc5 de I2 \lfc2 h6 1 3 �bd2 J; Botterill and Harding. b2) 8 ... ll e8 9 d5 �b8 10 d6! cd ( l 0 . . . �c6? 1 1 �g5 ±±) I l i.xd6 l2Jxe4 I2 �xeS l2Jxd6 1 3 1!Vxd6 ± because f7 caves in: I 3 . . . lle7 1 4 l2J xf7 llxf7 1 5 "ildS , Kolisch­ Winawer, friendly game, London .•.

6 0-0: Black's 6ths 65

Evans Gambit: Section 3 1 8 83. c) 7 ... d6 8 1!fa4 a6 9 .idS .ib6 10 de ll.'lg4 1 1 ed ± Unzicker. 8 lt:l xe5 8 de 0-0 9 .idS lLlcS is probably

not good enough for White. But if now 8 . . . ll.'l xe S 9 de 0-0 1 0 1!fg4 ll.'lcS 1 1 i.h6 ±. 8 9 10 11

.t a3 ll.'l xc6 1!1a4 (63)

0-0 d6 be

.ixh7+. This is old but untested analysis usually given as = or !. In view of the bishop pair and Black's exposed king White must have the advantage. Conclusion: 6 . . . liJge7 and 6 . . .

't!Vf6 had better stay o n the shelves gathering dust. But won' t some­ body come and claim 6 . . . lt:l f6? Chigorin's idea at move 1 1 seems to make it as good a defence as any against the Evans. Peel-back: The overall conclusion on 6 0-0 is interestingly problematic

in all of sections 1-3. But does 6 d4 offer White better chances? This is taken up by the next three sections. I will start with what I consider to be Black's most reliable defence. Chigorin had a very interesting idea in this position: 11 .. 1!1g5!? and if 12 f4 �g6 ! ( 1 2 . . . 'ii'h S ? 1 3 fS ± ) 1 3 WxaS i. h 3 1 4 g3 lt:l xg3 l S �gS �xg5 1 6 fg .ixfl 1 7 i.xfl ll.'le4 18 .te l f6 ! and White's minor pieces are disorganized whereas the black rooks are active. I have not been able to find anything much against this. Perhaps White's best is just 1 2 .te l 'tWhS 1 3 �xc6 .if5 , though Black seems to have the edge. The less enterprising 1 1 i.xc3 1 2 lt:lxc3 lt:l xc3 is more pleasant for White: 1 2 1!1xc6 .ie6 13 .id3 ll.'ld5 14 .te4 lt:lb6 15 1!1c2 litb8 1 6 .

...

Sectio n

4

6 d4: M a i n Lin e 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

e4 ltJ f3 i. c4

b4 c3 d4 0-0

e5

lLl c6 .ic5 .ixb4

.tas ed liJ ge7! (64)

As I explain in the introductory survey, the variation introduced . by this move constitutes my main reason for thinking that 6 d4 i s not superior to 6 0-0. Black sensibly prepares to hit back in the centre

66 Evans Gambit: Section 4

6 d4 Main Line

with . . . d5.

situation that can be compared with the old 'Normal Position' of Anderssen's heyday (see Evans Gambit 8). White has pressure in the long black dia gona l and a cramping central wedge. But if Black reacts quickly with . . .td7, . . . c5 and a general queenside advance, I feel that the extra pawn ought to tell.

64 w

.

8 9 8

cd

Other moves do not convince, although White would dearly like to st rike immediately: a) 8 ltlg5 d5! a l ) 9 ed lbe5! and Black usurps the initiative. For example, 10 'ffxd4 f6 1 1 ll e l i.b6 and White is in trouble. a 2) 9 .txd5? lbxd5 10 Wh5 g6 1 1 'ti'h6 .te6! =F Estrin Kondali corres 1 97 1 . As a reminder that it is n ot always Black who gets quickly rubbed out in the Evans note the drastic finish: 1 2 ltlxe6 fe 1 3 ed Wxd5 1 4 i.g5 ll f8 1 5 cd lbxd4 1 6 ltld2 llf5 ! 1 7 .te3 lbe2+ 1 8 �h 1 lith5 0- l . The point is 19 1!fg7 lhh2+ 20 �xh2 Wh5 mate. b) 8 't!rb3!? (well-motivated: to stop . d5) 8 . 0-0 9 cd .tb6 10 d5 lba5 (as White's bishop on c4 is no longer a great piece, it may be better to play 10 . . . ltld4!?: 1 1 Wd3 . ltlxf3+ 1 2 'ifxf3 ro) 1 1 Wc3 ltlxc4 1 2 'ttxc4 d6 1 3 .tb2 Bloch-Foley, Islington 1 97 1 . This is an interesting -

.

.

. .

ed

d5 lb xd5 (65)

65 w

,

H ere White has an important choice to make between: A 1 0 1!fb3

B 1 0 i.a3! Keres once played 10 .tgS, but after 1 0 . . . Wd6 1 1 1!rb3 i.e6 Black is achieving harmonious develop­ ment and can meet 1 2 ltlbd2 i.xd2 1 3 lbxd2 ( i ntend i ng ltle4) with 13 . . . ltlxd4! 14 Wxb7 ( 14 1!rb2 Wb6; 1 4 'ti'a4+ Wc6) 14 . 0-0 1 5 lbe4 We5 ! 1 6 llae 1 litfb8 1 7 @'a6 ltl b4 +. ..

A 10

Wb3

This forcing move has been the usual choice in actual ga mes. But I

6 d4 Main Line 67

Evans Gambit: Section 4 do not trust it. Surely the gambiteer is not making the best use of his potential by capturing on b7! 10 .te6 10 . . ll:lce7?! looks suspiciously .

passive and was refuted in great style in Erlandsson-Demiden ko, corres 1 980-3: 1 1 .ta3 c6 1 2 .txe7 ®xe7 ( 1 2 . . . 1Wxe7 13 .i.xd5 cd 1 4 �b5+ costs Black a piece) 1 3 .i.xd5 'fi'xd5 1 4 1!t'a3+ Wd8 1 5 It c 1 b6 (to avoid what follows he would have to try 1 5 . . . .tc7 , but then 16 ll:lc3 1!t'd6 17 1!t'b3 seems strong) 16 Itc 5 ! (66) 66 B

1 6 . . . be 1 7 1Wxa5+ 'it>e8 1 8 ltlc3 1M8 19 'fi'xc5 .te6 20 d5 ! .txd5 (20 . . . cd 2 1 ltlb5 !) 21 Ite l + .te6 22 ll:ld4 1!t'd7 23 ll:lf5 lilg8 24 It d l .txf5 (24 . . . 't!t'c7 25 ll:lb5; 2 4 . . . .i.d5 2 5 ltlxd5 cd 26 Itxd5 ±± ) 25 llxd7 .txd7 26 ll:le4 f6 27 h3 Wd8 28 't!Vd6 ct>c8 29 ll:lc5 lld8 30 ltl xd7 1 -0. 1!t'xc6+ will win one of the rooks. 11

1!t'xb 7?!

This has met with success, but I think that the mission should

really prove fatal. Better 1 1 .taJ!? although B lack has a good reply in 1 1 . . . 1!t'd7 ! , e.g: a) 1 2 1!t'xb7?? lilb8 and . . . llb6 H. b) 1 2 .i.b5 ltl de7 ! c) 12 Itdl 0-0-0 and White has nothing for his pawn (Selfe­ Harding, corres 1 974-5). d) 1 2 ll:lbd2 is, as Cafferty and Harding suggest, relatively best. 11 12

ltldb4 .tb5 (67)

Forced, since he does not get nearly enough for his queen after 12 .txe6 Itb8. 67 B

With three moves to look at for Black, though I would say only one that really matters: At 12 ... .i.d7 A2 12 . 0-0 AJ 12 ... .i.d5 ! ..

Al 12

.td7

White gets plenty of tactical chances, although it is far from clear what result perfect play would produce. With such over­ whelming complications perfect

6 d4 Main Line

68 Evans Gambit: Section 5 play is unlikely to be found in a game - and not all that likely to be revealed by the following analysis, I fear, in spite of the aid of some penetrating investigations by Cafferty. 13 lael+ 'it;f8 (68) 68 w

Black is threatening to win the queen with . . . l:tb8, so White must take active measures. Two moves come into consideration - 14 i.a3 and 14 �e5 . The first was tried in a recent game: Davis-Peters, USA 1 98 3 : 1 4 i.a3 ItbS ( Peters shows that unpinning loses material: 1 4 . . . 'i!?g8 1 5 i.xb4 Itb8 16 i.xc6 and now both 16 . . . Itxb7 1 7 i.xdH Wxd7 1 8 i.xa5 and 1 6 . . . i.xb4 1 7 i.xd7 i.xe 1 1 8 11Vd5 should win for White) 1 5 'it'a6 Itb6 ? (but here 1 5 . . . �g8 ! was right. Peters gives the following variations after 1 6 i.xb4: a) 1 6 . . . Itb6? 1 7 1!rxa5 ! ± as i n the game; b) 16 . . . �xb4 17 'it'xa5 Uxb5 1 8 'it'xa7 �c2 1 9 �c3 � xe 1 20 Itxe 1 and White has compensation for the exchange; c) 1 6 . . . i.xb4 1 7 l:tc l ! �e5! oo ) 1 6 'it'x a 5! �xa5 1 7 .txb4+ rt>gS ( 17 . . c 5 ? 1 8 .txa5 ! .

i.xb5 1 9 de 'it'f6 20 cb ±± Peters) 1S i. xd7 1Ixb4 (or 1 8 . . . 'it'xd7 1 9 .txa5 ± ) 1 9 lieS+ 'it'xeS 2 0 .txeS g5 (the position has s tabilised to an ending with bishop and knight v rook which we can safely say is ±. But it would be a shame to omit the finish of this rousing game) 2 1 h3 'i!?g7 22 a3!? lbb3 ( Peters gives 22 . . . 1Ic4! 23 t'D bd2 n xe8 24 t'D xc4 lbxc4 25 � xg5 t'D d2 as the last chance, but here 25 a4 and 25 lacl lbxa3 26 Uxc7 are both ±) 23 ab �xa1 24 i.a4 la bS 25 b5 c6 26 �c3 cb 2 7 �xb5 �b3 2S �xa7 �c1 29 �c6 la b2 30 d5 �e2+ 31 'i!'h2 rt>f6 32 d6 'i!?e6 33 �fe5 �d4 34 � xd4+ 'i!?xe5 35 d7 1 -0.

Now let us turn to 14 t'De5. This was analysed at some length by Cafferty and Harding in their 1976 book and then , i n response to the annotations to the Davis­ Peters game, some further refine­ ments were added by Cafferty and Nunn in the British Chess Magazine ( 1 984). Here are the main con­ clusions: 14 �e5 and now: a) 1 4 ... labS? 1 5 �xd7+ 'it'xd7 1 6 'it'xb8 ±±. b) 1 4 �xeS 15 lixe5: bl) 1 5 ... libS 16 'it'xb8 ! ( 1 6 "@xa7 i.xb5 1 7 'it'xa5 1Wxd4 +) 1 6 . . . 'it'xb8 1 7 i.xd7 and the threat of lie8+ recoups the queen . But who stands better? Approximate equality results from 1 7 . . . "@d8 1 8 lle8+ 1t'x e8 1 9 .txe8 'i!?xe8 20 lba3. •..

·

6 d4 Main Line 69

Evans Gambit: Section 4 Attempts to win the rook on a l seem unsatisfactory, e.g. 1 7 . . lt:Jc2 I S i.a3+ 'i!?gS (better l S . . lt:J xa3 1 9 ltJ xa3 'it'dS 20 lieS+ 'i!t'xeS 21 i.xeS 'i!?xeS +) 1 9 lieS+ 'i!t'xeS 20 i.xeS lil xa l 21 i.a4 intending i.b2xa l . b2) 1 5 ... f6? 1 6 i.xd7 ! is s trong because 16 . . . fe loses to 1 7 'it'f3+ b3) 15 . . . c6 1 6 i.c4 (69) is critical . .

.

.

So I think that in the last analysis 14 ltJe5 proves inadequate and hence White should take his chances with 14 i.a3 . A2 12

14 15

Now Cafferty and Nunn con­ cocted the following spectacular line against 16 . . . i.b6 (Peters): 1 7 lif5 ! ( 1 7 i.f4 1!fcS ! ) 17 . . . libS 18 i.f4! lixb7 19 i.d6+ 'f!/e7 20 lixf7+ e8 21 llxe7+ 'i!?d8 , with best play appearing to be 22 i. xb4 i.xd4 23 li xd7+ xd7 24 i.c3 lixb 1 + 25 llxb 1 i.xc3 and although White can win a pawn with 26 llb7+ it must be doubtful whether he can win the game (opposite-coloured bishops). That is a very decorative variation, but the initial move is not the best. Black should play 16 ... ll b8 ! 1 7 'it'xa 7 i.b6 lS 't!Va3 ( Cafferty and Harding) when he can win by 1 8 .. i.xd4 19 .ib2 .ie6! ! .

0-0

I ronically, this sensible and, to all appearances, 'modem' defensive treatment predates the Davis­ Peters game by well over a century! lib8 1 3 i.xc6 'f!/xa7 'it'c5

lt:Jxc6 i.d5

Anderssen-S.Mieses, Breslau 1 867, continued 1 6 i.a3 lle8 1 7 ltJ bd2 lle2 lS li fd I 'f!/d7 19 ltJfl . Anderssen eventually won ( 1 -0, 7S), but that cannot be put down to the opening. Black's active bishop pair fully compensate for the pawn. A3 12

i.d5 ! (70)

In my opinion this is the strongest. As Cafferty and Harding acknowledge in their book, I first suggested it some ten years ago, but it still continues to escape the attention of other anal ysts. 70 w

6 d4 Main Line

70 Evans Gambit: Section 4 13 lt':le5 Since 12 . . . .id5 does not break the pin on the knight on c6 one would expect this to be critical. Besides, with an angry swarm of black pieces encircling the queen, nothing else will do: a) 13 tt:lc3 lib8 14 .ixc6+ lt':lxc6 =t=F because the knight on c3 hangs. b) 13 liel + �f8 1 4 .ia3 �g8 1 5 i.xb4 lt':lxb4 (here i t makes all the diffe rence that the bishop is on d5 instead of d7) 16 't!'xa8+ 'ti'xa8 1 7 lie8+ '@xe8 18 i. xe8 .ixf3 intending . . . lt':lc2 H. lib8 .ixc6+ Weaker is 14 lt':lxc6 lii: x b7 1 5 13 14

lt':lxd8+ lhb5 (the knight on d 8 is trapped) 16 lt':lc3! lt':lc2!? 17 lt':lxb5 tt:lxa l 18 .if4 �xd8 19 l ha l a6 +. 14 15

tt:lxc6

71 w

'ti'd3

10

l:tb6 0-0 (71)

.ia3!

i.e6

Note that 10 . . . i. b4?? loses to l l i.xd5 '@xd5 12 i. xb4 tt:lxb4 1 3 'ti'e l +. 11

.ib5

Black has no problems after 1 1 tt:l bd2 .ib4 now. 11

.tb4

Black might even have time to play 1 1 ... f6 !? intending . . . �fl. For example, 12 1!Va4 .ib6 1 3 .t xc6+ b e 1 4 1!t'xc6+ �fl. and Black is certainly not worse. This possibility gives Black more chances of advantage than 1 1 . . . i.b4. 12

1Wa6

Black's advantage is obvious after 15 lt':lxc6 l:lxb7 16 tt:lxd8 �xd8 . 15 16

So White did not lose his queen after all! But there is nothing for him to rejoice about in this position. Black has the two bishops and much better development ( +). B

.ixc6+

Others: a) 12 .ixb4 tt:lxb4 1 3 i. xc6+ might tranpose, but that move-order gives Black the option 13 . . . ll:lxc6 1 4 tt:lc3 lt':le7 oo. b) 12 'ffa4 'ti'd6 13 tt:le5 ? ! 0-0! 1 4 tt:l xc6 b e 1 5 .ixc6 lii: b 8 + Muravlev-Tanin , corres 1 967-8. 12 13 14

be

tt:l x b4 "t!Vd6 (72) As the queen is rather awkwardly exposed on this square Black might also consider 14 ... l:tb8!? 1 5 a3 ll:ld5 16 'ffx c6+ 'ftd7 1 7 "t!Va6 oo. .ixb4 "t!Va4

Evans Gambit: Section 4

6 d4 Main Line 71

but as the motto has it 'Be prepared ! ' . So our next section deals with the notorious 'Com., promised Defence .

72 w

'

Sectio n 5 Compro m ised Defence

We have been following some analysis that originated from Levenfish, who now gave 1 5 lbbd2 0-0 1 6 lbe4 �f4 1 7 lbeg5 = or 1 6 . . . 't!te7 1 7 lbc5 =. The reader should be warned, however, that although these assessments have been frequently repeated they have never been properly tested in practice. Conclusion:The 7 . . . lbge7 line seems to be an excellent defence against 6 d4. Variation A with 10 'ifb3 is tactically complex, but Black forces a significant advantage with 1 2 . . . .td5! (A3). 1 0 .ta3 ! seems more satisfactory for White (probably =) but the possibility of 1 1 . . . f6 !? for Black deserves investigation . The activity of Black's minor pieces is a striking feature of the whole line. -

Peel-back: So 7 . . . li:Jge7 is good .

But what if Black just keeps on eating pawns with 7 . . . de? Few people will play like that nowadays,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e4

lt:\£3 .t c4 b4 c3 d4 0-0

e5 li:Jc6 .tc5 .txb4 .ta5 ed de (73)

73 w

If gambit play ever has any justification then surely this ought to get smashed! The view that the Compromised Defence is not only too risky, but also objectively inferior, is practically universal. Few will disagree with ECO's ± a ssessment of the resultant. In consequence it is · a fairly safe bet for Whites who embark on the Evans Gambit that Black will not play like this. I t ,

72 Evans Gambit: Section 5

wasn't always so. A century ago the Compromised Defence was theoretically active. Chigorin could not see a refutation, which was why he preferred 6 0-0 to 6 d4. Zukertort played it as Black on several occasions, including four games of an 1 87 1 match against Anderssen . There is an interesting qu estion as to whether modern theorists are just right about the objective assessment, or whether their threshold for acceptable risk is set at a lower level. 8 'it'b 3 '§'f6 The alternative is 8 . . . 'it'e7 9 lh x c 3 and now: a) 9 ... lbf6? 10 lbd5! lh xd5 1 1 ed lbe5 12 lbxe5 "t!fxe5 13 J.b2 "i!t'g5 1 4 h4! 't!Vxh4 1 5 J. xg7 llg8 1 6 llfe l + �d8 1 7 'it'g3 ! 1 -0 Fischer­ Fine, 'friendly game', New York 1 963. b) 9 . . . J.xc3 1 0 "t!fxc3 lbf6 ( 1 0 . . . f6!?) 1 1 J.a3 d 6 1 2 e 5 lhe4 1 3 1i'b2 ! lbxe5 1 4 lhxe5 't!t'xe5 1 5 ll fe 1 ± (Fischer). c) 9 . . . "t!fb4!? 10 J.xf7+ �d8 1 1 J.g5+ lbge7 1 2 lhd5 't!¥xb3 1 3 ab and now: c 1 ) 13 . . . J.b6 14 llfc l h6 1 5 ll xc6 hg 16 lbxb6 cb 1 7 ll xb6 (Free­ borough and Ranken) is said to favour White. c2) 13 ... J.b4 14 lla4 a5 1 5_�4 lbxb4 1 6 llfa l (Unzicker) is supposed to be ;!;. I don't find variations c l and c2 very convincing. The assessments could be questioned. And in c l

Compromised Defence what about 1 6 ... aW? 1 7 lixa8 lbxc6 18 lb xg5 �e7? White is probably better, but it isn't an easy position for either side. So maybe the Compromised Defence is playable after all, with 8 . . . tWe7 9 ltJ xc3 'ti'b4 1 0 J.xf7+ 'it>d8. But White has another, quite recent move JJ1 J.b2! After this Black will have to improve upon 1 1 . . . "t!fxb3 1 2 J.xb3 J.xc3 1 3 J.xc3 lbf6 14 lbg5 �e7 15 e5 lbe8 16 f4 h6 1 7 lbf3 �d8 1 8 lbh4 1 -0 Hartoch-Eslon, Netherlands-Sweden 1 976. It is doubtful if he can since 1 2 . . . lbf6 13 lbg5 llf8 14 lbd5 ( ± - EC (j} also puts him in a terrible mess. 9 e5 't!Vg6 9 . . . lbxe5? loses to 1 0 lle l d6 l l lbxe5 de 1 2 "fi'a4+. 10 lbxc3 lhge7 Others: a) 10 ... b5 I I lb xb5 llb8 12 't!Ve3 ltJge7 1 3 'it'e2 'it'h5 1 4 J.a3 (Kolisch-Anderssen, London 1861) and Black's position is very difficult. b) 1 0 . . . J.xc3 I I 'it'xc3 lbge7 1 2 lhg5 0-0 1 3 J.d3 ± (Larry Evans).

11

J.a3! (74)

The best way of maintaining the pressure. 11 lbe2, as Anderssen played against Zukertort ( 1 87 1 match), is none too convincing after 1 1 . . . b5 12 J.d3 'i!Ve6. It hasn't exactly been proved that White wins from this position, but nobody has been able to come up with anything that looks

Evans Gambit: Section 5

Compromised Defence 73 li.Jf5 1 6 li ae l + .i.xe 1 1 7 llxe l + 'i!?f8? 1 8 'irxc6! ±±. However, he subsequently queried the correct­ ness of this explosive combination lt.J5e7! because of the move 17 'and it is difficult to see how White can do more than draw' . A draw could indeed result from 1 8 de lib1 1 9 .i. xf7+ 'i!?xf7 20 't!rf4+ 1!rf6 2 1 1!t'c4+ 1!t'e6! 22 1!t'f4+ etc. ll b 8 1 2 lt.Jd5 lt.J xd5 13 c) 1 1 .txd5 b5 14 e6 ! fe 1 5 .txc6 de 16 lt.Je5 1i'e4 17 'irg3 and Black's defences are overstrained, e.g. 17 . . . lig8 18 't!fg5 b4 19 't!fh5 + g6 20 't!fxh7 lif8 2 1 lt.J xg6 ±±. d) 1 1 a6 1 2 li.Jd5 lt.Jxd5 1 3 i.xd5 b5 1 4 e6! fe 1 5 .txc6 de 16 ltJe5 @e4 17 't!Vg3 with the same attack as in (c). Roikov-Orlov, Leningrad 1 968, concluded 1 7 . . . g6 18 llad 1 b4 1 9 life 1 · 't!ff5 20 ltJxc6 ba 2 1 1i'xa3 l-0 - because of 2 1 . . . 't!ff6 22 lidS+ 'it>f7 23 l hh8 'tlfxh8 24 1We7+ 'i!?g8 25 't!fd8+ 'i!?g7 26 't!fd4+ 'i!?g8 27 lt.Je7+ etc. ...

-

...

healthy for Black. Known variations are: 0-0 (it has always seemed a) 1 1 to me one of the wonders of chess that Black manages to do this in the main line of the Compromised Defence!) 12 llad l lle8 1 3 .i.d3 @h5 14 lt.Je4 lt.Jxe5 15 lt.J xe5 'ti'xe5 1 6 .tb2 'ti'e6 1 7 @b5 is analysis by Lasker. After 1 7 . . . i.b6 18 'irh5 Black's troubles should soon be over, e.g. 1 8 . . h6 1 9 lt.J g5 '@xa2 20 .th7+ 'i!?f8 (20 . . . 'it>h8 2 1 'irxh6 ±±) 2 1 .i.b 1 @c4 (or 2 1 . . . 'irb3 22 lid3) 22 lt.Jh7+ 'it>g8 23 li.Jf6+ gf 24 '@xh6 and forces mate. bS 1 2 ltJ xb5 llb8 is the b) 11 least clear variation, but unlikely to be much good since Black no longer has much of a material advantage to justify his suffering. A simple and promising response is 1 3 .txe7 �xe7 ( 1 3 . . . lt.Jxe7? 1 4 lt.Jd6+) 1 4 'ira3+ .tb4 1 5 '@e3 with a strong attack against the king in the centre ( lt.Jxc7 and ltJg5 are both threatened). Blackburne won an 1 875 exhibition game with 13 't!ra4!? a6 14 ltJd6+!? cd 1 5 ed ...

.

...

...

Conclusion: The Compromised Defence seems to be fatal for Black. Peel-back: Our next section will cover 6 . . . d6, which is an important alternative to 6 ... ed. There are a few odds and ends to be tidied up on the way. Alternatives for Black at move 7 are dubious: d3 8 't!fb3 't!ff6 9 e5 't!¥g6 10 a) 7 lie l ± (as in the ce1ebrated ' Ever­ green' game A nderssen-Dufresne, Berlin 1 85 1 ) or 8 . . . file? 9 i.a3 d6 ...

Compromised Defence

74 Evans Gambit: Section 5 10

� e l intending e5 ±. b) 7 lbf6 8 .i.a3 d6 9 e5! with a strong attack. c) 7 . . . d6 8 t!lb3 t!ff6 9 e5 ! de 10 � e l with a strong attack again (as in M orphy-Kipping, B irmingham 1 8 5 8). However, in view ofthe adequacy of the 7 . . . l£:.ge7 line (Evans Gambit 4) it is White who stands in need of an alternative at move 7. I nteresting and little known is 7 1lb3!?, e.g. 7 . . . t!fe7 8 0-0 .i.b6 9 cd lb xd4 10 l£:.xd4 .i.xd4 1 1 tt:'l c3 with a complicated position that certainly offers the attacker prac­ tical chances. If there is reason to prefer 6 d4 to 6 0-0, this is a possibility well worth considering. •..

Section 6

6 d4 d6

75 w

e4

1 2 3 4 5

lbf3 .i.c4 b4 c3

6

d4

e5

lb c6 .i.c5 .i. x b4 .i.a 5 d6 (75)

We already known about 7 0-0 in this position since it transposes into Evans Gambit 1 or 2, with Black choosing between 7 . . . .i.b6, 7 . . . .i.g4 and 7 . . . .i.d7. But the whole point of playing 6 d4 instead of 6 0-0 is supposed to be to avoid those Jines (and, in particular, Lasker's 7 . . . .i.b6 defence). So the question is: Can White do any better with 7 \lt'b3 ? 7

tlt'b3

First pl ayed in Morphy-Ayers, Mobile 1 8 55 - though presu mably Morphy did not play it in order to avoid Las ker's Defence. 7

\lt'd 7

There are three other moves that Black has tried. I don 't want to get bogged down in the m, as they are pretty clearly inferior but not simple. So in mere summary form: a) 7 . . . 'ti'e7?! appears to lose a piece, but is a little tricky: 8 d5 liJd4 9 Wa4+ (9 .i.b5+, as Morphy played , and 9 lb xd4 are both weaker) and now: a ! ) 9 . . .i.d7 1 0 'ti'xa5 l£:.c2+ 1 1 ®d l lbxa l l 2 l£:.a3 ± as White can pick up the knight on a l at his leisure. a2) 9 . . \lt'd7! 10 Wxa5 b6 1 1 l£:.xd4! ba 1 2 .i.b5 ed 1 3 .i.xd7+ i.xd7 14 cd � Riello-del Pezzo, Venice 1 950. That is not an easy ending, but it ought to be better to have doubled d-pawns than doubled a-pawns. b) 7 . . . l£:. h6?! was tried in two .

.

6 d4 d6 7_5

Evans Gambit: Section 6 games by Bronstein (Sokolsky­ Bronstein, Kiev 1 944 and Ragozin­ Bronstein, USSR Ch 1 945), but after 8 i.xh6 gh 9 i.xt7+ l&>f8 1 0 de 'f!/e7 1 1 i.d5 h e lost them both . His own comment in 200 Open Games is a p propriate: "Alas, the open pSiti"n of the black king, which had literally nowhere to hide from the scorching rays of the attack, meant that Black could not take sufficient advantage of the open f- and g-files." c) 7 lbxd4 is less clear than 'a' and 'b', although after 8 lbxd4 ed 9 i.xt7+ ¢>f8 1 0 0-0 "@e7 1 1 i.c4 White has plenty of play. The game A.R.B. Thomas- Unzicker, Hastings 1 950- 1 , continued 1 1 . . . lbf6 1 2 cd .!D xe4 1 3 'f!/f3+ .!Df6 1 4 lbc3 i.xc3 1 5 "@xc3 i.f5 1 6 l:Ie 1 't!fd7 1 7 i.g5 .!De4 1 8 nxe4 i.xe4 19 lii: e l d5 ( 1 9 . . . 't!tg4!? 20 f3 1rxg5 2 1 fe oo seems a better defence) 20 lii: xe4! de, when a win has been claimed with 2 1 1i'b4+ instead of 2 1 'it'g3 , which led to a draw. 8 de (76) ...

76 B

Black has two lines of defence:

A 8 B 8

•..

...

de

i.b6

A 8 9

de 0-0

An interesting possibility is 9 i.a3 i.b6 10 0-0 .!Da5 1 1 .!Dxe5 !?

lbxb3 1 2 ab 'f!/e6 1 3 i.xe6 i.xe6, generally assessed as +. 9 i.b6 10 l:Id1 1!t'e7 And not 10 lba5? 1 1 i.xf7+! 'it>f8 12 't!tc2 and Black has only the abject 12 . . . We7 since 12 . . . 't!t'xf7 1 3 l:Id8+ 'it>e7 1 4 i.g5+ 't>e6 15 1!t'd2 is curtains (Cafferty and Harding). Black has to be continually on his guard against this sort of shot. For example, in the last diagram, if 8 . . . lbxe5? then 9 .!Dxe5 d e 1 0 i.xf7+ 't!t'xf7 1 1 Wb5+. 11 a4 (77) This move of Shaposhnikov's has been taken to supersede: a) 1 1 i.a3 t!Vf6 1 2 lbbd2 oo compare with variation B (7 i.d7) in Evans Gambit, section 2. b) 1 1 li dS a6 1 2 .!Dbd2 1!t'f6 1 3 .!D fl i.e6 1 4 i. g5 1!t'g6 =t= Lisitsin­ Rabinovich, Leningrad 1 940. Here Fine has contributed the murky suggestion 14 lbg3 !? lbge7 1 5 i.g5 1Wg6 16 i.xe7! oo. But White's attack does not look sufficient after 14 . . . i.xd5 1 5 ed .!Da5 1 6 1!t'a4+ c6. ...

...

6 d4 d6

'76 Evans Gambit: Section 6 77 B

S epp, corres 1 959-60. e) 1 1 . i.e6?! 1 2 a5 i.xc4 1 3 't!t'xc4 't!Vc5 ( 1 3 . . . i.c5 1 4 lidS i.d6 1 5 a6! ) 1 4 'W'fl ! lbxa5 1 5 lid5 'i!t'c4 1 6 liaxa5 ± Aronin. Note that White picks the e-pawn up with check. f) 1 1 . lbh6 12 a5 i.xa5 1 3 i.a3 1!ff6 14 i.b5 i.d7 1 5 c4 (Keres) is given as ± in many places, but is far from clear after 1 5 . . 0-0-0!?, e.g. 16 't!t'a4 a6 17 i. xc6 i.xc6 1 8 lixd8+ lixd8 1 9 'fi'xa5 lid I + 20 ltJ e l .txe4 + (Botterill and Harding). Also after 16 .tel .i.b6 1 7 i.g5 1!t'g6 1 8 i.xd8 li xd8 Black seems to have more than enough for the exchange. ..

..

.

Black has several possibilities: a) 11 ... aS 12 i.d5 i.g4? (Shaposhnikov said 12 . . . i.c5 was better, but Cafferty and Harding's suggestion 1 3 1!fc4! threatening i.xf7+ is strong) 13 11d3 i.e6 (if 13 . . 0-0-0 14 lbbd2 lb f6 15 lbc4 i.c5 1 6 li b l ± Larry Evans) 14 i.a3 1!¥f6 1 5 lbbd2 lbge7 1 6 lt) c4 ± Shaposhnikov-Veltmander, RSFSR Ch 1 958 1 1 . a5 is an undesirable concession because it robs Black of . . . lba5 and . 0-0-0. b) 11 ... ltJaS? 12 i.xf7+ 'fi'xf7 1 3 litd8+ r!Je7 1 4 i.g5+ lbf6 1 5 'W'xf7 -i- r!Jxf7 1 6 ll: xh8 ± or if 1 2 r!;f8 just 1 3 'fi'a2 lbf6 1 4 i.a3 c 5 1 5 i.d5 ± Shaposhnikov. c) 1 1 ... i.c5 12 i.g5? ! lt) f6 1 3 i.d5 0-0 14 a5 a6 1 5 lbbd2 lbd8 + Yurkov-Bykhovksy, Moscow Ch 1 963 . White's 1 2th had little point. 12 a5 or 12 i.a3 should be tried. d) 1 1 . . a6 1 2 a5 i.c5 1 3 i.a3 i.xa3 14 lt)xa3 lt)f6 1 5 i.d5 lt)d8? (Euwe suggested 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6 lt)c4 i.d7 1 7 lbe3 lbd8, when White does not appear to have much for his pawn) 16 lt)c4 0-0 1 7 lt)cxe5 ± Soko1ov.

.

.

.

..

...

.

B 8 i.b6 A move motivated by the same sort of common-sensical defensive considerations that inspired the Lasker Defence . Black does not mind too much if White wins back the pawn, so long as he can neutralize White's attacking for­ mation with . . . lba5. The virtues of this approach are shown by the variation 9 0-0 lba5 10 'it'b4 lbxc4 1 1 't!Vxc4 de 12 lbxe5 'fi'e6 when Black has a stable advantage in view of his bishop pair and sounder pawn structure. 9

lbbd2!?

An interesting and imaginative piece of analysis by Cafferty seemed to make this White's best try, but a recent Black innovation at move 1 1 forces us to think

Evans Gambit: Section 6

6 d4 d6 77

again. The other options are: a) 9 ed ll:l a5 10 "it'b4 ll:lxc4 1 1 't!fxc4 "it'xd6 1 2 JLa3 iLe6! and now: a l ) 13 't!fb5+ 'i!fd7 14 1!t'b4 c5 1 5 't!fb2 'i¥d3 ! 1 6 ll:l bd2 0-0-0 =F Mnatsakanian-Korelov, USSR Ch 1 963. a2) 13 'i¥e2 't!rc6 ( 1 3 . . . 'ii'd 7 ! + Unzicker) 1 4 ll:ld4 'ii'c4 1 5 l0xe6 'iWxe2+ I 6 'it>xe2 fe = Pfleger­ Unzicker, Bamberg 1 963. b) 9 1Wc2 de 10 iLa3 ll:l ge 7 l l ll:lbd2 0-0 I 2 iLb3 'it>h8 1 3 0-0 f6 + Ragozin-Mikenas, USSR 1956. c) 9 iLb5 and now: c l ) 9 . ll:l ge7 10 0-0 'it'g4 !? I I ed cd 12 iLa3 JLe6 I 3 'ii'a4 0-0-0 oo Cafferty-Marriott, corres 1 956-7. c2) 9 . a6 10 iLa4 \!t'e6 l l JLxc6+!? (why? l i 'ifxe6+ !? JLxe6 12 ed looks right to me) l i . . . be I 2 0-0 li b8 and now Chandon-Moet v Bottlik, corres I 974, continued 13 'it>h i ?! de 14 'ii'x e6+ JLxe6 1 5 ll:lxe5 ll:le7 1 6 iLa3 f6 + . Bottlik suggests that White would do better with 13 't!Yxe6+ iLxe6 1 4 iLa3 / l 3 . . . fe 1 4 e d cd I 5 JLa3. Of these alternatives only 'c' holds out any prospects for White.

78 B

Cafferty-Clarke, British Ch 1 970, though that is also quite good) 14 . . . JLd7 ( 1 4 . . . lt:ld7 15 lid5 ! ) 1 5 't!t'b3 (intending f4-f5 , and i f 1 5 . . . 0-0-0? 1 6 l0 xf7) 1 5 . . . lid8 (79)

..

..

ll:la5 ll:lxc4 1!Vc2 ll:l xc4 (78)

9 10 11

Fro m here we move Cafferty's analysis with:

into

1 l ... de 12 l0fxe5 'ii'e6 13 JLa3!

and now: a) 13 . l0f6 14 0-0-0 ! (an improvement on the 1 4 f4 of .

.

1 6 lid6 ! cd 1 7 lt:lxd6+ 'it;>f8 1 8 ll:ldxf7+ and White either wins material through 1 8 . . . 'it;>g8 1 9 l0xd8 JLxd8 2 0 litd2 or drives the attack home after 1 8 . . . 'it>e8 1 9 lt:ld6+ 'it;>f8 2 0 lt:l xd7+ 'ii'x d7 2 1 ll:lf5+ 'it;>e8 22 ll:lxg7+ 1Wxg7 23 'ii'e 6+ and mate next move. b) 1 3 . . . iLd7 1 4 'ii'b3 !iJe7 15 !iJxd7 1lt'xd7 16 l0e5 'ii'e 6 1 7 1Wxe6 fe 1 8 0-0-0. White threatens 1 9 litd7 and must surely have the advantage because of Black's lazy rooks.

78 Evans Gambit: Section 6 c) 1 3 ... li:Je7 is the safest, though after 14 '@'a4+ .i.d7 1 5 li:Jxd7 'i!fxd7 1 6 l0xb6 cb 1 7 '@'xd7+ �xd7 18 0-0-0+ �e8 19 lld3 White probably has ;! in the ending. So 9 li:Jbd2 gives White good chances? Not so! On his way to becoming world correspondence champion Palciauskas produced d5! the telling improvement 1 1 ...

12 l0xb6 ab 1 3 0-0 de 14 'it'xe4 'i!Vg4 (80) 80 w

White is left with a pawn on e5 rather than e4 and this is clearly in Black's favour since it gives him complete control of the light squares. Meanwhile White's a­ pawn is a long-term weakness and the fact that his bishop cannot get to a3 frustrates his attacking desires. Estrin-Palciauskas , l Oth World ·Corres Final, continued: 15 1We3 l0e7 16 li:Jd4 0-0 1 7 h3 1!t'g6 18 f4 c5! 19 li:Jb5 lidS 20 l0d6 li:Jf5 21 l0xc8 ll axc8 + 22 't!t'f3 h5 23 'it'xb7 ll c6 24 't!fa6 c4 25 'it'a4 lld3 26 llb1 llxh3 27 e6 (27 't!t'xc6 1kxc6 28 gh l0g3 H) 27 . . llxe6 28 .

6 d4 d6 't!fxc4 'i!Vg3 0- l . Black threatens 29 . . . 1!t'h2+ 30 'it>f2 ll f3+ 3 1 �xf3 'i!fg3 mate and if 29 't!fd5 lle2 forces mate. A very impressive game. Perhaps White need not lose quite so quickly (e.g. he could exchange queens at move 1 5). But in the long run he seems powerless to combat Black's strategic idea, which essentially consists in going, not for the two bishops, but for the better bishop or good knight v bad bishop. Conclusion: To take up the question posed at the beginning of this section - can White profit from avoiding the Lasker Defence with 7 't!fb3? - it seems doubtful whether he can, given the latest state of the art in variation B (8 . . . .i.b6). Variation A really has no business to be good for Black because of one general consideration: in our main line of Evans Gambit 1 he could get precisely the same position as occurs after Black's 9th in A by playing 9 . . . 'i!Vd7. But with that move order it would look a silly move to play and nobody has ever suggested that it m ight be better there than the more natural 9 . . . 'i!ff6. Yet our resultant in A is far from clearly good for White, and the subsequent variations c, d and f may indeed be good for Black. This is quite a puzzle. I don't know the solution, but it seems reasonable to suggest that the fault lies in the Shaposh-

Evans Gambit: Section 6 nikov plan 1 0 Ii:d 1 and 1 1 a4. White should give some t h ough t to the alternatives 10 .ib5 !? and 10 .idS!?. 10 .ib5 !? is o ften quickly dismissed with the refer­ ence lO . . . 'it'e6 1 1 1Wxe6+ .ixe6 12 .ixc6+ be 13 l0xe5 l0e7 + Diihrssen-Keres, corres 1935. This, you wi l l note, is very similar to note c2 to White's 9th in B . So probably l O .ib5 !? is not good enough. But 10 .idS!? h as been strangely neglected, for such a

normal Evans move. It is, at any rate, the only thing I can find to reco mmend. Peel-back: We have now gone through all the most i m po r tan t variations after 5 . . . .ia5, with White playing either 6 0-0 (sections 1 -3) or 6 d4 ( sections 4-6) . The next section is a casual look at a little known third option for White - 6 't!t'b3 .

Section 7 6 �'tlfb3 1 2 3 4 5 6

e4 lbf3 .ic4

b4 c3 '4!t'b3 (81)

e5 lt:lc6 .ic5 .ixb4 .ia5

To be frank, there isn't much to say here, except that 6 't!fb3 is rarely played and nobody knows much about it. Therein lies its

6 d4 d6 79 81 B

charm ! At a very general level, there are some things going for the move: it obliges Black to make an early and difficult decision as to how to defend f7, inhibits the sometimes useful riposte . . . d5, and above all takes the opponent out of prepared defences (such as Evans Gambit 1 , 2 or 4). The loss of flexibility involved in committing the queen to b3 is, however, a serious drawback. 0-0 and d4 are moves that White is going to play come what may, but the queen might be better posted on a4 or d l or so me other square. A rigorously analytical approach hardly seems appropriate . Instead let's follow the one grandmaster game that has featured 6 't!Vb3 , namely Nunn-H iibner, Johannes­ burg 1 98 1 : 6

't!ff6

Cafferty and Harding speak well of 6 ... l0h6 7 d4 0-0 8 .ixh6 gh, but the shattering of Black's kingside pawns must offer White some compensation. There is also 6 .. . 1le7 with just a few examples:

'" I

13 d6 8 d4 ed 9 0-0 i.b6 , 8·A nderssen , Manchester seems good for Black 1 . '"- ua e of 1 0 e5 lDa5 ! . b ) 1 d4 and now: b l ) 1 ... ll:l xd4 8 lD x d4 ed 9 0-0 .l b6 IO e5 ! with good attacking chances ( Wills-Jones, corres 1969). b2) 7 ... .tb6 8 lDxe5 lDxe5 9 de d6 I 0 0-0 d e I I .ta3 "irf6 1 2 lDd2 oo Wills- H opewe ll, corres 1 969-70. 7 8

.tb6 d6 Much safer than 8 . .. ed 9 e5 'i!t'g6 I O c d lDxd4 I I lDxd4 .txd4 0-0 d4

12 lD c 3 lbh6 (Bird-Chigorin, Hast ings I 895) 1 3 .ta3 ! . c!'b as seems a reasonable 8 alterna tiv e, however, and if 9 de 1i'g6 co. ···

9

de

In lnformator Filip presents us with th e heroic idea of 9 lDg5 ! ? lDh6 I O f4 oo . Easier said than done ! A ny volunteers for this missio n fr om which few survivors can be ex pe cted to return? 9 10 II

82 w

6 'W'bJ

Gambit: Section 7

lDxeS a4

lD xeS de a6 (82)

12

�h 1

White prepares f4, a n ambitious plan. A possible improvement is 12 aS .ta7 ( 1 2 . . . .tc5 I 3 .te3 ! ) 1 3 lD d 2 o r only then I 3 �h i intending f4. 12 13

f4

14

aS

lDe7 .te6

No choice, as I 3 . . . 0-0 I4 fe 't!Vg6 I S .ta3 is very strong indeed. Black would be very happy with 14 .t xe6 1!fxe6 1 5 't!Vxe6 fe 1 6 fe lbg6 +. 14 IS 16 17

't!Vxb7 fe lDd2

.tcs 0-0 't!tg6

White has even contrived to win a pawn. But really it is only a loan, since Black can enforce a recapture on e 5 . In the meantime Black has taken the lead in development, and White has to confess that things are not going too well by conceding the option of a draw by repetition ( 1 7 .. . lUb8 I 8 't!Vxc7 lk8 1 9 't!Vb 7 etc). 17 18 19 20 21 22

lD xc4 \!Vb3 1!fa4 .tf4 lladl

.txc4 "i!ke6 ll ab8 lDc6 ll bS .ta7

The pawn is bound to fall now. 23

h3

h6

Subtle play to gain a tempo. If at once 23 . . . llc5 the reply would be 24 lld5 - but what else can White do anyway?

Evans Gambit: Section 7 24 25

li dS ed

lixd5 1!txd5 (83)

It is clear that Black is better. H aving got the one pawn back he can turn his attention to the other weaklings on e5, aS and c3. N unn 's next move just loses the e5 pawn. 26 lldl 'i!¥e4 27 .tg3 ttJxa5 drops one of the others. Best was 26 i.g3, but 26 . . . llb8 is still + . 26 27 28 29 30

ltJ e3? .txe3 .tf4 i. xe5 1!Vc4

.txe3 ltlxe5 lidS "t!Vxe5 lidS

White's situation deteriorates into the tournament player's nightmare - a game that is pretty clearly lost, but not decently resignable. I give the rest of the game without comments, even though it is a grim business. In fact, I give it precisely because it is a grim business, as a reminder that this sort of finish is just as common as an attacking victory: 31 1!Vxa6 llxa5 32 \!fc4 lidS 33 \!fb3 g6 34 11Vc4 xg2 'ikg4+ 1 6 ..t>h l 1Vx0+ 1 7 �g l i.h3 . 11 12 13

0-0 ltJc3 ltJe2

ltJg6 c5 (86)

86 w

Understanding of this position evolved through a series of games between A nderssen and Zukertort in the 1 860s, in which it finally emerged that Black's best plan consisted in . . . f6, . . . i.c7, . . . I! b8, ... b5 and then ... c4 ! (but not first . . . b4, when the advance gets bogged down in the blockading mire c4). The Breslau professor

. .

was able to sum up the findings of the seminars with his promising student like this: 14 '@d2 i.c7 1 5 li[ac l Itb8 1 6 ltJg3 f6 1 7 ltJf5 b5 1 8 �h i c4! (Zukertort's thesis: if 19 i.e2 b4 anyway, because of 20 i.xc4 ltJxc4 2 1 I!xc4 .ia6) 1 9 �b1 b4 20 .id4 i.a6 2 1 't!M l c3 + W. Paulsen - Anderssen, Barmen 1 869. B 9

lL!c3

Morphy's move, frequently em­ ployed by C higorin, and usually given as best. 9 ltJaS It is rather curious that this move works out as well as it does. On principle, Black ought to develop an unmoved piece: a) 9 .ig4 10 i.b5 �f8 !? ( 1 0 ... .i.d7 1 1 e5 ! lL!ge7 12 .ig5 is attractive for White) 1 1 .ie3 lL!ge7 1 2 a4 aS 1 3 .ic4 .ih5 14 lilc l ! (an improvement on 1 4 'Ot>h 1 of Chigorin-Gunsberg, Hastings 1 895) 14 . . . 'Wd7 1 5 .ib5 1Vc8 16 .ie2 and White had a beautiful position for his pawn in Cafferty-Cadden, corres 1 967-8. ltJf6 is best answered by b) 9 10 h3, with play as in C: 9 h3. The immediate assault 1 0 e5 !? de 1 1 .ia3 is an untrustworthy oo after 1 1 . . . ltJa5 ! .ig5 (87) 10 The bishop on c4 is of course indirectly protected ( 'Wa4+), so White forces Black to make a decision ...

.•.

5 . i.c5

84 Evans Gambit: Section 8 87 8

.

.

play ! The attack triumphed in Chigorin-Gunsberg, 9th match ga me, Havana 1 890: 12 llJ ac6? 13 i.xe7 llJ xe7 14 li:J g5+ �g6 ( 1 4 . . . Wg8 1 5 \!Vb3 ! ++; 14 . . . wes 15 'it'h5+ Wd7 16 llJf7 'ti'f8 1 7 llJxh8 'ti'xh8 1 8 'i!kf7 ±) 1 5 li:Jf4+! wf6 ( 1 5 . . . wxg5 16 'ti'h5+ wf6 1 7 e5+ mates) 1 6 e 5 + 1 -0, presumably because of 16 . . . de 1 7 de+ wf5 1 8 'ti'f3 ±±. However, Chigorin showed that Black can hold the position with 12 . lieS! 1 3 !i.. x e7 .ll x e7 14 li:Jg5+ Wg8 1 5 'ti'h5 h6 ( 1 5 . . . g6 16 llJf6+ Wg7 1 7 'ti'xh7+ wxf6 1 8 e5+ wxg5 19 f4+ wf5 20 'ti'h3+ we4 21 'ti'f3 + Wf5 is another variant on the theme of perpetual check) 1 6 'it'g6 hg 1 7 llJf6+ Wf8 1 8 llJh7+ and draws. 82 f6 10 11 !i.. f4 (89) ...

between: 81 10 . .. li:Je7 82 10 ... f6 83 1 0 'ti'd7 .•.

81

li:J e7 10 11 i.xf7+ This only draws , but then the same goes for l l llJd5 f6 ( I I . . . llJxc4?, however, loses to 1 2 i.xe7 'it'd7 1 3 i.f6! 0-0 1 4 'it'c l intending 'it'g5 , \!Vxc4) 12 i.xf6 gf 13 llJ xf6+ �f8 1 4 llJg5 li:J xc4 1 5 'it'h5 Wg7 1 6 1!ff7+ �h6 and White has t o settle for a perpetual check with 1 7 'it'h5+. 11 wxf7 12 llJd5 (88)

..

89 B

88 B

The perfect paradigm of gambit

1 1 i.h4 and 1 1 i. e3 are also playable, but not all that different. Pollock-Chigorin, H astings 1 895, was a n exciting attempt to make something of the action of the bishop in the h4-d8 diagonal: 1 1 !i.. h 4 llJe7 12 li e l ! ? i.g4 1 3 e5!

Evans Gambit: Section 8 de 14 de t!t'xd l 1 5 l:i:axd l lt:lxc4 1 6 ef gf 1 7 i.xf6 'Ot>f7 ! 1 8 i.xe 7 i.xf3 1 9 gf .ta5 20 l:i:d7? (20 l:i:e4! is better) 20 . . . ltlb6 21 l:i:xc7 l:i:fc8 ! =F. lt:le7!? 11 This move seems to be a sig­ nificant improvement upon 1 1 . . . ttJxc4 1 2 �a4+ t!t'd7 1 3 t!t'xc4 1!ff7 1 4 lt:ld5 when White's advantage i n space and development m ore than compensates for the gambit pawn, e.g: a) 14 . g5? 1 5 ii:.g3 i.e6 (Steinitz had been under the misapprehension that he could play 1 5 . . . h 5 , but 1 6 ttJxb6 ab 1 7 t!t'xf7+ 'Ct>xf7 1 8 l:i: fc l saves the bishop o n g3 b y win n i ng a pawn) 1 6 t!t'a4+ i.d7 1 7 "t!t'a3 l:i:c8 1 8 l:i:fe l ± Chigorin-Steinitz, London 1 88 3 . b) 14 i. e6 1 5 �a4+ ii:. d 7 1 6 1!t"c2 lic8 17 a4 i.a5 1 8 l:i:fb 1 ± Chigorin-Dorrer, telegraph game 1 884. c6 12 h3 Perhaps White should try 1 3 ii:.d3 now, with the idea o f keeping the knight on a5 out of the game. 13 i.b3 lt:l g6 14 i.g3 �e7 15 l:i: e l lbxb3 1 6 1!fxb3 ii:.e6, as in Asharin-C higorin, R iga 1 892, is +. It is revealing that Chigorin, after some successful performances with White, was willing to play the black side of this line. B3 �d7 10 This has the merit of actually threatening 1 1 . . . lt:lxc4. However, it does serious harm by obstructing ..

..•

5 . . .tc5 85 .

Black's own lines of communica­ tion, e.g. 1 1 i.d3 ttJ e7 1 2 ti:ld5! ti:lxd5 ( 12 . . . tt::l g 6!?) 1 3 ed 0-0 1 4 l:i: e l lle8 1 5 1Wc2 ±. c 9 h3 like t h is move. Instead of doing something frantic, White decides that he will preserve all the advantages of his position and starts by preventing the annoying . . . i.g4. There a re many cases in which the most effective way of handling a gambit is just t o strengthen your position in a quiet and methodical way, rather than forci ng an immediate crisis. 9 lt:lf6 10 l:i:e1 h6 11 i.a3 0-0 12 lt:l c3 l:i:e8 13 l:i:cl (90)

White has a lovely, flexible development whereas Black's game is so cramped and uncomfortable that it is a problem how he is to connect his rooks. Mariotti-Gligoric, Venice 1 97 1 , continued 1 3 ... tt::l h 7 1 4 l:i:e3 ltl a 5 1 5 i.d3 i.e6 1 6 t!t'e2 ltlf8 ( 1 6 . . . c5 ! seems much better)

86 Evans Gambit: Section 8

5.

1 7 4ll41 �16 18 ltlxb6 ab 19 dS Ad? 20 .i.bl �f4 21 1We2 e6 22 Wc3 16 23 de be 24 .tn eS 25 llJ h4 dS?I (better 25 1We7 - M ariotti) 26 ed IOxdS 27 l he8+ 'irxe8 28 1Wa3 1We4 29 lld1 ll:e8 30 ..id3 1Wa4 31 .ih7+ 'it>xh7 32 llxd5 ll:e7 33 .txf6 ! 'ti'e4 (91) (33 . gf 34 1Wg6+ 'it>h8 35 'it'xf6+ ll:g7 36 ltl f5 ±± ) . . .

. .

.tc5

played. In vanatwn C we have only an illustrative game, rather than a theoretical analysis . That is quite appropriate. White should just smoothly complete his develop­ ment. Let Black worry about how he is going to get his pieces out!

. .

91 w

Peel-back: Of respectable moves for Black only 5 . . .te7 remains, so that is the next section . There are also two bizarre retreats: 5 . . . ..id6 (once played b y Pillsbury) and 5 . . ..if8 (once played by Steinitz). There would be little point to a detailed analysis. If Black does that at move 5 , who knows what his 6, 7, etc. might be? In either case White replies 6 d4, with an excellent game. .

.

34 lLlg6! 'ft'xg6 (34 . . gf 35 llJxe7 \!t'xe7 36 'ti'd3+; 34 . ll:f7 35 lLlf8+ 'it>g8 36 llxd7 ±±; 3 4 . 1!fxd5 35 ltlxe7 1!Yf7 36 '@d3+ �h8 3 7 'ft'xd7 gf 3 8 \!t'd8+ 'it>g7 39 lLJf5+ 'it>g6 40 g4 ±) 35 .txe7 ..ie6 36 ll:d6 1!Vt7 37 lhb6 l0c4 (37 . . Wxe7 38 't!re5) 38 l:tb7 ..tfS 39 ll:c7 .ig6 40 .txe5 'ti'f6 41 ..ib4 1 -0. .

. .

.

.

Sectio n 9 5

. . .

.

An encouraging victory for the Evans Gambit, showing that it is still capable of striking down high-class opposition.

Conclusion: If White gets to the Normal Position he should not rush things out of anxiety to prove that ·he has enough for the pawn . Variation B2 needs to be improved from White's side if 9 lt::l c 3 is to be

92 w

!/Le7 1 2 3 4 5

e4

llJf3 ..te4 b4 c3

eS ltle6 ..ic5 ..i xb4 ..ie7 (92)

What could be more rational

5 . . �e7 8 7

Evans Gambit: Section 9 than this modest move ? Hartston has commented: " Most grand­ masters consider this the most sensible response. Black avoids all the dangers of the old lines . . . , keeping instead a safe position, ultimately gaining the bishop pair and no structural defects." True, B lack avoids any of the minor piece entanglements associated with 5 . . . �a5 (White's 'it'a4 and d5 thrusts) and does not put it on c5 to be prodded again by d4. I ns tead, with the gambit pawn under its cassock, the bishop says .. mission accomplished" and returns to base. Yet this is not a particularly challenging line against the Evans, for the bishop on e7 is not playing a very active role. Indeed it obstructs the defence of f7 , a factor which more or less obliges Black to return the pawn straightaway. White can choose between: A 6 d4 B 6 't!i'b3 A

.

this book we see many instances in which this i s not a serious blow to Black's chances.

93 B

7 8 9 IO

lt::l a5 'ifb3 1Jf8 �xf7+ 1Jxn 'ti'a4 't!t'xa5 (93)

To be frank, this position has received little serious attention, the moves cited s o far customa rily serving as a p retext for passing on fro m 6 . ed to something more respectable. I t is not hard to believe that 1 0 . d6 1 1 cd (as in Lehmann-Do oner, Munich 1 958) favours White - big centre, safer king, better development, n o material cost. B u t I wonder how bad for B lack 10 . . de (already condemned in the Handbuch) 1 1 lt::l xc3 really is. . .

.

.

.

6

d4

And now there are three responses that deserve consideration: AI 6 . ed A2 6 ... d6 A3 6 ... lLl a5!

A2 6 7

..

•

AI 6

ed

The trouble with this is that the f7 pawn now falls by force. Yet in

de

d6 lt::l x e5

If this is not good, at least it takes some marvellous play t o show why. T h e inadequacy o f alternatives is easier t o detect: a) 7 . lt::l aS 8 �xf7+ 1Jxf7 9 9xd5+ � e6 1 0 1Wxa5 ±. .

.

88 Evans Gambit: Section 9

5.

b) 7 . de 8 'llb 3 l0a5 9 .txt7+ �f8

1 0 'lra4 m u st su rely be good for White since here the displacement of Black's king is aggravated by a weak e-pawn and an open d-file. de (94) 8 lDxeS ..

94

• � ... � ;. . � lj)­ � & • & . . �X. - �7. � - �7. . -

w • & �-�

•

.-

;

7.

• • • · i. · � · • • D • • • l'flw.�fi �0 . , 1, � � -i] ��·1f8 9 'it'f3+ llJ f6 1 0 g4 d6 1 1 g5 de 12 gf i.xf6 13 de llJ c6 1 4 ef \!t'xf6 Inkiov-Minev, B u l garia 1 977. 8 �e8 1 s one of the refutations. 7 llJ xc4 8 tb xc4 dS 8 . . . d6 is of course playable, but concedes an enduring spatial advantage. 'tVxdS 9 ed 10 tbe3 (97) The assessment of this position has to hover between and t. I n practice White has done rather well. It is true that Black has the two bishops, but White's one bishop repeatedly threatens to outshine them by means of i.b2, =

...

=

5 . . J.e7 89 .

c4 and d 5 . 97 B

Here are some examples of further play: a) 1 0 "it"d8 1 1 0-0 li:lf6 12 c4 0-0 1 3 tbc3 c6 1 4 i.b2 1!i'a5 1 5 d5 i.a3 1 6 i.xa3 "it"xa3 17 "t!t'b3 ! ;!; Tartakower-Trifunovic, Paris 1 950. b) 10 \!VaS 1 1 0-0 llJf6 12 c4 b1) 12 c6 1 3 i.b2 .te6 14 li:lc3 li d 8 1 5 d 5 ! cd 1 6 li:l cxd5 li:lxd5 1 7 c d 0-0 ( 1 7 . . . J. xd5 1 8 1!Yh5 ! ) 1 8 'ti'f3 i.xd5?? ( 1 8 ... J.c8 1 9 llfd 1 ±) 1 9 "t!t'g3 ±± Cafferty-van Geet, A msterdam 1 972. b2) 12 0-0 13 d5 ! b5 1 4 li:ld2 be 1 5 llJ d xc4 9a6 1 6 i.b2 lie8 (Minev suggests 16 . . . li:lg4!?, to w h ich I think 1 7 ll c l is still a good reply) 1 7 li c l litb8 1 8 .te5 ! ± lib7 1 9 li e 1 i.d7 (98) ...

...

...

...

98 w

10 ..,., Otlmblt: Stction 9

5 . . . J..e 7

.! ,

, . 4tt od 2 1 .lxf6 gf 22 ll:ld5 .i.e6 . . ll lo3 *hi (23 . . . A xd5 24 llg3+ IU 25 •a4 :±± ) 24 ll:l xe7 llexe7 25 •d4 *a' 2 6 llgH ..&f8 21 Wxf'6 *e8 28 ll:le5! 1-0 Timman­ Tatai , A msterdam 1 977. If 2 8 . . . de just 2 9 ll d 1 'ffd 6 30 'ti'h8+ ·

wins.

c) 1 0 ... 9d7 1 1 0-0 ltlf6 1 2 c4 0-0

(afterwards the players agreed that 12 .. . b5 ! would have been better, justifying Black's 1 Oth) lJ ltlc3 c6 1 4 d5! (a good move as usual) 14 . . . cd 1 5 ltlcxd5 lLl xdS 1 6 ll:lxd5 .i.d8 1 7 ll b 1 'Wc6 1 8 't!rd4 ;!; Jt:l u nn- L arse n , London 1 980. B

6 99 w

7

1fb3 d4

ltlh6 lLl aS (99)

Until the B ulgarian correspond­ ence master G .Popo v came up with

8

\!rbS!

there was cause to regard 6 1!rb3 as dubious because of 8 •a4 ll:lx c4 9 •xc4 l0g4 ! and now: a) 1 0 h3 l0 f6 1 1 de d5 ! 1 2 Wa4+ Ad7 1 3 'W'b3 ll:lxe4 1 4 1Wxb7 c6 (Ravinsky) =t=. b) 10 de d6! with a good game. c) ECO surprised me by mysteriously

giving 10 lLlxeS lil xeS 1 1 de d6 1 2 .i.f4 ' ±' Skotorenko-Tomaszewski, corres 1 976. After 1 2......, 0-0 l 3 0-0 .i.e6 this assessment loOks quite wrong to me. ltlxc4

8

8 . . . c6?! 9 't!Vxe5 f6 10 'W'h 5+ g6 1 1 1t x h6 ± Harding-Parker, corres 1 974. 9

J..xh6

gh

Now Black's pawns are shattered, which is the point of 8 1Wb5! . I f the white queen were on a4 Black would have the zwischenzug 9 . . . l0b6. Here 9 . . . lild6 does not have the same effect because of l O tfxe5 ±. 10 'Wxc4 (100) 100 B

Another problematic and in­ triguing two knights v two bishops contest to co m pare with the resultant of our Lasker Defence main line. Is it better to have the bishops with broken pawns (but still one extra)? Or the knights with a spatial advantage and strong centre? My friend and co­ analyst Tim Harding has been successful on the white side of this line several times in postal games,

5 . . . .te7 91

Evans Gambit: Section 9 but still regards the issue as unresolved. The evidence we have to go on may be set out as follows: a) 10 . . . d6 10 de ( l l ll::l b d2 !?) I I . . . .ie6 1 2 "t!Vb5+ a l ) 12 ... 'if;f8? 13 1!¥xb7 'it;g7 14 (}.() ± Harding-J.H.Hodgson, corres 1 974-5 . a2) 1 2 .. 1i'd7 1 3 "t!Vxb7 0-0 and now not 1 4 0-0? .ic4 intending . . . lifb8. White could try 1 4 1!¥a6 or 1 4 lll bd2. Against the latter ECO gives 14 ... de 15 lll xe5 1i'd6 1 6 ltJ f3 �f6 intending . . . 't!rd3, which looks strong. The position is opening out to the benefit of bishops, so probably I I de should be reconsidered. . b) 10 . . . dS!? I I ed ed 1 2 0-0 1!fd6 1 3 1!fxd4 ± Harding-Turek, corres 1974-5. c) 1 0 ... ed I I cd and now: c l ) 11 dS!? 12 ed 0-0 is a suggestion from Konstantino­ polsky. The doubled d-pawns are actually strong, but Black can give up a pawn for counterplay: 1 3 0-0 c6 14 de be 1 5 -.xc6 .ie6. c2) 11 ... .if6? 1 2 ll::l c 3 c6 13 0-0 0-0 14 e5 .ig7 1 5 ll::l e4 ± Rozhlapa­ Belova, Moscow 1 972. c3) 11 d6 12 0-0 0-0 13 ltJc3 c6 has the air of normal play about it. Harding-Micklethwaite, corres 1 974-5, continued 1 4 l::i: a b l ( 14 d5?! .tf6; 14 l::i: ae l !? 'if;h8 !? intending . . . f5 - Larry Evans) 14 . . . 'if;h8 15 'if;h l l::i: b8 16 d5! c5 17 e5 ±, but one presumes that .

.•.

.•.

Black's play could be improved. Conclusion: 5 . . . .ie7 has enjoyed a good reputation, but I think it is overrated. Notice how few variations in this section terminate in Black's advantage. Moreover, as in many E vans Gambit lines, White scores well in practice. With 6 d4 White has good prospects of t and little fear of anything worse than equality. 6 Wb3 leads to a very interesting and unbalanced position. But, beware! Although it might achieve more than 6 d4, it is significantly riskier. Peel-back: White can play 5 0-0 if he wishes (as in fact Evans did in his famous victory over McDonnell), but this will t ranspose into 5 c3 and 6 0-0 variations. So we now go on to consider what may happen if Black declines the gambit at move 4.

Section 1 0 The G a m bit Decl i ned 1 2 3 4

e4

eS

ll::l f3

ltJc6

.ic4 b4

.icS .ib6 (101)

The Evans Gambit is usually accepted. Is this because people think that Black can advantageously get away with taking the pawn? Or is it . because they think the

92 Evans Gambit: Section 10 declined version of the Evans is inferior for Black ? It is an interesting fact that the Goring Gambit is much more commonly declined than the E vans is, even though it is doubtful whether the Evans pawn is really a safer pawn to take than the Goring pawn. I uncharitably suspect that many players imagine that White can j ust win the e-pawn with 5 b5 and 6 ltl xe5. Another factor is that there is a plan for W hite against the decliner (our variation B I ) that has been grossly overrated. 101 w

We shall analyse the con­ sequences of: A 5 b5?! B 5 a4 Note, however, that another major option for White is 5 c3 with d3, 0-0 and a4 to follow, which will transpose into Bird's treatment of the Giuoco Piano (see Greco Gambit introduction).

The Gambit Declined 5 ll:la5 5 ltld4 is playable, but concedes White a stable advantage after 6 ll:l xd4 .txd4 7 c3 .tb6 or 6 . . . ed 7 0-0 d6 8 d3 . But not 6 ll:lxe5?, which leads to a catastrophe: 6 . . . 'fi'g5 7 ltlxf7 '@xg2 8 lUI 'fi'xe4+ 9 .te2 ll:lf3 mate. 6 ll:lxe5 (102) 5 b5 lacks motive if White isn't goin g to d o t his. Besides, after the insipid 6 .te2 both 6 . . . d6 and 6 . . . d5 !? are fine for Black, e.g. 6 . . . d5 ! ? 7 ll:lc3 !? (better 7 d3) 7 . . . d e 8 ll:lxe4 f5 9 ll:lc3 e4 =t= Spielmann­ Burn, Carlsbad 1 9 1 1 . ...

102 B

6 'it'f6 Black has three good moves in this position, but I would recom­ mend 6 .. . 't!Vf6 as the most straightforward refutation of White's play. The other two are: a) 6 \!t'g5 7 .txf7+ �e7 8 .txg8 'it'xe5 9 .td5 and now I think that Black could probably just take the rook: 9 Wxa l 10 ll:lc3 d6 1 1 0-0 .td4 !?. Levenfish considered this too risky and gave 9 . c6 10 d4 .txd4 1 1 f4 'it'f6 12 c3 .txc3+ 1 3 ...

. . .

A 5 b5?! Don't do it!

. .

Evans Gambit: Section 10 lbxc3 t!t'xc3+ 1 4 .id2 t!t'd4 1 5 .txa5 1!Ve3+ 1 6 1!Ve2 1Wxe2+ 1 7 xe2 cd 1 8 ed b6 1 9 .ic3 .ib7, and a draw seems likely. But of course many deviations from this knotty string of moves are possible. b) 6 lbh6 7 d4 d6 8 .i xh6 de (8 . . . gh!? i s also held t o favour Black after 9 .ixf7+ We7 or 9 lb xf7 1!Vf6 or 9 !i'h5 t!t'f6 1 0 lb xf7 0-0 ! ) 9 .ixg7 llg8 1 0 i.xf7+ Wxf7 I I .txe5 'fi'g5 oo but Black's piece is probably worth more than White's four pawns (S teinitz-Dubois, 2nd match game 1 862 and Reti-Perlis, Vienna 19 1 3). 7 i. xf7+ Wf8 d4 8 d6 9 .i xg8 de .ixd4 (103) 10 .idS ...

103 w

The Gambit Declined 93 B 5 a4 a6 Notice that 5 lbxb4?, a deferred acceptance oft he gambit, is very bad : 6 a5 i.c5 7 c3 llJ c6 8 0-0 d6 9 d4 ed 1 0 cd i.b4 1 1 d5 and 't!t'a4+, picking up the bishop on b4. After 5 . . . a6 White has: Bl 6 lLlc3!? B2 6 .ib2!? Bl 6 llJ c3!? Soviet theoreticians , and others following them, have been unduly i mpressed by this move. Perhaps the fact that it was devised at the board by Kan has aroused generous inclinations towards such invention. 6 lLl f6 lbxd5 7 llJd5 For the second time White was offering a pawn, which Kan's opponent unwisely accepted in the original 1 929 ga me: 7 lLl xe4 8 0-0 0-0? ( better 8 . . . lb f6) 9 d3 llJf6 10 .ig5 d6 1 1 lLld2! ± i.g4? 12 .ixf6 t!t'c8 13 lLlxb6 cb 14 f3 ±±. The hapless victim was none other than the young Botvinnik. 8 ed (104) ...

...

White has a roo k and a mate en prise. An old analysis (Max Lange in the Paris 1 867 tournament book) proceeded 1 1 f4 .ixa 1 12 fe t!t'g6 1 3 0-0+ We8 1 4 .if7+ 'fi'xf7 1 5 llxf7 �xf7, when Black, with two rooks and bishop for the queen, must be winning.

1 04 B

'

94 Evans Gambit: Section 10

The standard reference here is Sokolsky-Goldenov, Kiev 1 945 : 8 . . . e4 9 de 0-0 1 0 J.b2 ! (an improvement on the 1 0 0-0 ef 1 1 1!t'xf3 de = of Sokolsky-Lilien thai, USSR Ch 1 944) 10 . . . ef 1 1 1!t'xf3 de 1 2 1!t'c3 lile8+ 1 3 �fl 'ifg5 1 4 h4 1!t'h6 1 5 a5 J.a7 1 6 h5 J.e6 1 7 lilh4 with some advantage to White. There are, however, two reasons why an assessment of this variation should not merely reflect this game. I n the first place, Neistadt points out that 9 ... 0-0 is a piece of misplaced cleverness. Instead 9 . . . ef 10 '@xf3 ( l.Q cd+!?, trying to win a pawn, is ignored by both Neistadt and ECO, though it is the only way to test Black's play) 10 . . . 1!t'e7+ I I 'it' d ! d e 1 2 J.b2 � 1 3 lile 1 J.e6 1 4 J.xe6 fe 1 5 'it'g4 0-0-0 ! leaves White not a jot better, e.g. 16 'it"xe6+ 'ifxe6 17 lil xe6 J.xf2 or 16 lil xe6 'it"d7 intending 17 . . . lilge8. In the second place, I would ask : why should Black open the diagonals for the bishops on c4 and b2 by playing 8 . . . e4? Isn't 8 . . . ll:ld4 all right? I think i t equalizes quite easily. After 8 ... ll:ld4 we can consider: a) Playing to win a pawn with 9 ll:lxeS - but after 9 .. . 0-0 1 0 0-0 d6 White either has to suffer I I ll:lf3 J.g4 1 2 J.e2 · ll:Jxe2+ 1 3 or + 'it'xe2 lile8 1 4 'it"d3 'it'f6 (Bednarksi-Minev, Warsaw 1 96 1 ), or else play the awkward 1 1 it)d3 =

The Gambit Declined (Cafferty and Harding), to which I think ll . . . 1!t'g5! is a frightening reply (intending . . . J.g4). b) Following Alekhine's example with 9 0-0. Now 9 . . . d6 1 0 it)xd4 J.xd4 1 1 c3 J.a7 1 2 d4 was ;t or ± in Alekhine-Fuentes, Melilla 1 945. However, a simple improvement is 9 . . . ll:Jxf3+ 1 0 1!Vxf3 d6, as Alexander recommends in Alekhine's Best Games of Chess 1 938-45, and White has nothing. Note that 9 ll:l xd4 J.xd4 1 0 c3? does not get White into the Alekhine-Fuentes scheme of things because of I 0 . . . J.xf2+ 1 1 �xf2 1!Vh4+. B2 6 7 8 9

J.b2!? d6 bS ab lilxa l ab J.xa l (1 05)

105 B

9

it)d4

Others: a) 9 . . . ll:laS 10 J.a2 J.g4 1 1 d3 ll:Jf6 1 2 0-0 t Kostic-Yates, The Hague 1 92 1 . b) 9 . . . llJb8 1 0 d4 ed 1 1 J.xd4 J.xd4 1 2 'ffxd4 'fff6! ( 1 2 . . . ltlf6 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 it)c3 ;t Tartakower-

The Gambit Declined 95

Evans Gambit: Section 10

Yates, Carlsbad 1 929) 13 eS! de 14 liJxe S .i.e6 I S .ixe6 1i'xe6 16 0-0 liJf6 1 7 lle l 0-0 1 8 liJd3 1i'c8 ;t Tartakower. 10

lbxd4

Better than 10 .ixd4 ed l l 0-0 liJf6 12 d3 0-0 13 lbbd2 (Tartakower­ Schlecter, Baden 1 9 1 4), when 13 . . . d5 ! is +. 10 11 12 13 14 15

c3 0-0 d3 ed

1i'f3

ed lbf6 0-0 d5!? liJxdS lbf6 (106)

106 w

Tartakower- Rubinstein,

The

Hague 1 92 1 , went on 1 6 cd i.xd4 But 1 7 liJc3 lbg4 1 8 lbdS liJ eS the patient 1 6 h3 lle8 17 liJ d2 ;!; of Tartakower- Rhodes, Southport 1 950, improves: White's bishops are more active and he threatens to assume control of important squares with 1 8 liJ b3. =.

Conclusion: The Evans Gambit Declined is not so bad as theoretical repute would have it. One can perhaps understand why people do not like it much, for it is unlikely to make adrenalin flow and pulses race. Only when White does something silly, as in variation A, do things get interesting for Black. White should guard against ove rreaching. Since the oft lauded 6 ltJc3 (B 1 ) is not at all promising, if accurately countered, I would advise White to try Tartakower's treatment (B2: 6 .i.b2). This line does not carry a heavy, knockouf punch, but White seems able to maintain nagging pressure in spite of simplification.

··

3

SCO TCH GAMBIT

1 2 3 4

eS e4 lbc6 lbf3 ed d4 i.c4 (1 0 7)

107 B

The name derives from a correspondence match between the London and Edinburgh clubs, played in the years 1 824-28 . Fr.om White's point of view the only thing wrong with the Scotch Gambit is that it hardly ever occurs - except as a m ove-order rather than an opening in its own right. Lines in which Black attempts to hang on to the pawn (Scotch Gambit 1) giv e White excellent compensation. T h e reason for this is tha t, by deferring action against the d4 pawn , White hands Black a choice of developing moves and choices are always opportunities for error. Mobilizing the bishop on f8 with 4 . .tc5 is natural enough, but puts the bishop on a somewhat vulnerable square and one that is ill-adapted to defensive purposes if White then continues in gambit style with 5 c 3 . However, because Black has been given a choice, the Scotch Gambit is liable to all sorts of transpositions. The first and most i mportant of these is 4 . . . lt:Jf6 ( ! ), which i m mediately takes the game into the Two Knights Defence (briefly surve yed in Scotch Gambit 3). The second transpositional possibility arises after 4 ... i.c5 5 c3 when Black can (and I think should) transpose into the Greco Gambit with 5 . lbf6 6 cd i.b4+ etc. As we found Black's resources against the Greco . .

.

.

97

Scotch Gambit: Introduction

Ga mbit t o b e fully adequate, o n e might wonder whether White might not try to avoid this by deferring confrontation with the d4 pawn for another move. Let us look at this in the context of a lively old game. Staunton-von Janisch Brussels 1 853 1 2 3 4

e4

lbf3 d4 .tc4

e5 lt:Jc6 ed .t c5

4 . . . .ib4+ is one of the most foolish things to play against the Scotch Gambit for reasons given in the peel-back note to Scotch Gambit 2. An example is 4 . . . .tb4+ 5 c3 de 6 0-0 d6 7 a3 .ta5 S b4 .ib6 9 'f!Vb3 1!tf6 10 .ig5 't!fg6 I I lbxc3 .te6 I 2 lt:Jd5 h6 13 .id2 .ixd5 ( 1 3 . . . lbge7 14 a4 is also extremely unpleasant for Black) 14 ed lt:Jce7 1 5 a4 a6 16 a5 .ta7 1 7 b5 ! lt:Jf6 1 S b 6 ±t von Bilguier-von der Lasa, Berlin I S 3S. 5

0-0

Crude assault on f7 with 5 lt:Jg5 lt:J h 6 6 't!fh5 1We7 should not work. If 7 0-0 Black can simply reply 7 . . . d6 intending . . . .id7 and . . . 0-0-0, wh ilst 7 f4 is best met by 7 . . . d5! S .txd5 lt:Jb4 9 .ib3 d3 +. d6

5

Here is a further transpositional chance for Black - 5 . . . lt:Jf6. If then 6 e5 d5 7 ef de we have the Max Lange Attack (see Scotch Gambit 3). Alternatively , 6 c3 lb xe4 7 cd d5 is variation 8 of G reco Gambit S. 6 7 8 9

c3 lbxc3 .t xe6 'inl 3

de

.ie6 fe 1Wc8

As in analogous positions in the Goring Gambit (e.g. Goring Gambit 4, variation A) 9 . . . 't!Vd7 ! is preferable . Defence of the b7 pawn is too trivial a task to saddle the queen with in such an open position. .t xe3 1 0 .te3 11 12 13

fe

lb g 5

lt:Jf6

lt:Jd8 (1 08)

liac1

I doubt whether this is best despite the result. More forceful is 13 e5!? de 14 liad l . This inhibits castling - 14 . . . 0-0 15 lixdS li / \!fxdS 15 lt:Jxe6 ±. The question is whether White can win after 14 . . . h6 1 5 lixdS+ ! WxdS 1 6 lt:Jxe6 We7 . The attempt 1 7 lt:Jb5 lieS 1 S lt:Jxg7+ 't!fxg7 19 't!Ve6+ �d8 20 lt:Jxa7 liaS 2 1 lldl+ lbd7 22 l hd7+ 't!fxd7 23 't!ff6+

98

Scotch

Gambit: In troduction 108 w

�8 24 'fi'xh 8+ �t7 25 'fi'xa8 ird l + allows Black to escape with perpetual check. a6 13 1 4 lba4 'fi'd7 h6 e5 15 b5?! 1 6 lbf3 · 16 lbd5 looks m ore sensible, though White obviously has good attacking chances. ba ef 17 gf 1 8 'it'c2 18 0-0 was quite playable. �e7?? 1 9 @g6+ Idiotic. He should have reconciled hi mself to 19 'it'f7 20 'fi'xf7+ lbxf7 2 1 ll xc7 0-0 2 2 lbd4 ;t de 20 li:\e5! 21 1Wxf6+ 1 -0 So try to play the Scotch Gambit if you wish But if you do, you must be prepared for something entirely different ! . . .

...

...

.

109 w

Section 1 M a i n Li n e : 5 de . . .

1 2 3 4 5

e4

e5

ll)f3

lb c6

d4 .ic4 c3

ed .ic5 de (109)

Main Line 5 . de 99

Scotch Gambit: Section 1

.

I have chosen this as the main line because it yields real, red­ blooded gambit-play. Black's moves, however, do not appeal to modern taste and so this position is rarely seen in practice. 6 lbxc3 White can play 6 .txf7+ but there is a danger that it will lead to simplification: 6 .txf7+ 'i!7xf7 7 'ti'd5+ 'i!7f8 8 "t!txc5+ fi'e7 9 1!ixe7+ (9 't!fxc3 is more lively and White may have the value of his pawn after 9 . .. 'i!t'xe4+ 1 0 .te3) 9 . . . t£Jge7 1 0 lb xc3 and now 1 0 . . . d5 1 1 ed .!Db4 = Schlechter-Spielmann, Baden 1 9 14. Black can also play 8 d6 here, an interesting recent example of which was 9 1!t'c4 !? .tg4 (9 . . . cb !?) 1 0 lb xc3 .txf3 1 1 gf "t!ff6 1 2 f4 "t!tf7 l 3 'fi'b5 t£Jd4 1 4 'ti'd3 lbe6 1 5 f5 .!D e S 1 6 'fi'c2 "t!tc4 1 7 .te3 lbf6?! ( 1 7 . . . .!Dd3+!) 1 8 0-0-0 Ile8 1 9 f3 ± Sveshnikov­ Kupreichik, Hastings 1 984-5. It is worth noting that the position after 6 lb xc3 could also be reached via a Goring Gambit ( I e4 e5 2 lbf3 t£Jc6 3 d4 ed 4 c3 de 5 lbxc3 .tc5 ? ! 6 .tc4). White may draw encouragement from the fact that in this sequence Black's 5th move is inferior to 5 . .i.b4. ...

.

6

d6

.

1 .tgs The most promising way of prosecuting the attack. Others: a) 7 0-0 t£J f6 8 .i.g5 (useless is 8 e5? de 9 'fi'e2 0-0 1 0 i.g5 .ig4 I I lit ad 1 t£Jd4 12 Wxe5 .i.xf3 13 Wxc5

.

.txd l 14 litxd 1 t£Je4! + Morschel­ Reissman, Lugano 1 968) 8 . . h6 (8 . .te6 9 lbd5 poses problems) 9 .th4 is a reasonable alternative. Black has difficulties over com­ pleting his development. b) 7 'fi'b3 Wd7 8 t£Jd5 t£Jge7 9 'it'c3 0-0 1 0 0-0 ( 1 0 .ih6 Wg4 1 1 lbg5 .ib4 ! 1 2 lbxb4 gh =F) and now not 10 t£Jg6 1 1 b4 intending .ib2 ± Schlechter-Hromadka, Baden 19 14, but Euwe's 1 0 . t£Jxd5 ! 1 1 ed lbe5 12 .!Dxe5 de 13 't!rxe5 .td6 +. .!Dge7 7 There is nothing immediate against 7 f6, though it is as ugly as sin. But 7 ..• 'fi'd7 may be better. Lasker gave the following variation: 7 . . . 't!rd7 8 "t!td2 h6 9 .th4 .!Dge7 1 0 0-0-0 .!Dg6 1 1 .ig3 a 6 1 2 lb h4 b 5 1 3 .t b 3 .i b 7 1 4 'i!7b l 0-0-0 1 5 llc l , claiming an advantage for White. This is far from clear. All that one can say is that White has very free play for his pieces, whilst the pawn he has conceded plays no significant role - for the time being. 8 lbd5 Going in for a piece sacrifice. 8 0-0 is a less drastic alternative and seems to preserve a dangerous initiative. Two variations from Schleeter's Handbuch: a) 8 . h6 9 .ih4 .tg4 10 t£Jd5 'ird7 1 1 b4! lbg6 12 .if6!? .i.xf3 l 3 Wxf3 .td4 1 4 .txd4 t£Jxd4 1 5 1!fc3 with good attacking chances. b) 8 0-0 9 lbd5 �h8 10 b4 .ib6 I I b5 f6 1 2 be fg l 3 cb .txb7 1 4 .

. .

. . .

.

...

.

.

...

.

100 Scotch Gambit: Section 1

Main Line 5 .

lt:lxb6 ab 1 5 lt:lxg5 ±.

8

f6 (1 10) The crucial test. In any case 8 i.e6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 b4 .t xd 5 1 1 e d lt:lxb4 (Mieses-Salwe , Carlsbad 1 907 ) 1 2 lil b l ! intending a3 is awkward for Black. ...

..

de

fact 5 . . . l0f6 ! - see the Greco­ Moller Gambit complex after 6 cd .ib4+ etc . 5 . . d3 is another, though less satisfactory, possibility, which we take as Scotch Gambit 2. .

Section 2 D ec l i n i ng with d3

/10 w

5

. . .

1 2 3 4 5

e4 lt:l f3 d4 .tc4 c3

e5 l0c6 ed .tcs d3 (1 1 1)

Ill w

9 .txf6 gf 10 lt:l xf6 + �f8 11 1!t'cl ! This idea of Keres' gives White a very strong (I think winning) attack, viz: a) 11 h6 12 1!t'f4 ±t. b) 11 �7 12 lt:lh5+ and mates. c) 11 lt:lg8! (the only move) 1 2 l0h5 ! .ib4+' 1 3 �fl 1!Ve7 14 'tWf4+ �e8 1 5 lt:lg5 lL!h6 1 6 l0f6+ �d8 1 7 lt:ld5 t!Vf8/ e 5 1 8 'i!t'h4 with decisive threats. ...

...

...

Conclusion: The main line of the Scotch Gambit gives White a very vigorous attack. Unwise for Black to enter here! Peel-back: The next question is whether Black has anything better than 5 . . de. His best move is in .

A safety first move that may be compared with the similar procedure against the Goring Gambit (Goring Gambit 6: variation C). But is it really so safe? Black aims to avoid the i mmediate dangers associated with hanging on to the pawn and allowing the gam biteer a lead in development. The general idea that return of the material surplus is a n i mportant defensive resource has a host of applications. But this o ne I do not approve of because the defender's '

-

'

Declining with 5 . . d3 101

Scotch Gambit: Section 2 back payment ought to extract concessions from the gambiteer. I n this instance White has eliminated Black's e-pawn and thus remains with a spatial advantage in the centre - not an overwhelming plus, but the basis for a persistent !. 0-0 6 White can also go into action on the queenside immediately with 6 b4 .i.b6 7 a4 a6 8 a5 .i.a7 and now: a) 9 'i¥b3?! 'ife7 10 0-0 and now: a 1 ) 1 0 . d6 ? 1 1 b5 ab 12 .i.xb5 .id7 1 3 a6! ± Kostic-Nielsen , Munich 1 936. a2) 1 0 . lLlf6 1 1 .!t:lbd2 0-0 1 2 i.xd3 d 6 13 b5?! ab 1 4 'ifxb5 .i.d7 + Kostic-van Scheltinga, Stockholm 1 9 3 7 . b) 9 0-0 .!t:lf6 ( 9 . d 6 1 0 \!fb3 transposes to the main line) 1 0 \!fxd3 i. 6 d6 .i.b6 7 b4 a4 8 a6 8 . . a5 9 b5 gives White tempi: a) 9 . .!t:le5 10 .!t:l xe5 de 1 1 :S:a2! intending .ll d 2xd3 . b) 9 .!t:lb8 - here I used to think that 1 0 'ii' b 3 was strong, but 10 . . . \!ff6 i s not bad for Black. So simply 10 1!Vxd3 i ( 1 0 . . . lLlf6? I I e5 ±; 1 0 . . . lL!d7 ! ) or 10 i.g5 .!t:le7 1 1 \!fxd3 t. 9 a5 .i.a7 1 0 �3!? Of course 10 1!t'xd3 can also be played and ought to be t- if the assessment of analogous positions is right. 1 0 1!t'b3 is more vigorous .

.

..

. .

.

but less flexible. 10 1!t'f6 10 1!t'e7 I I b5 ! transposes into Kostic-Nielsen above. ab b5! 11 S hying away from the tactics that follow by playing 1 1 .. . .!t:l e5 has the disadvantage that after 12 .!t:l xe5 de 1 3 ba ba 14 \!fa4+ .i.d7 15 \!fd 1 White has lasting pressure against Black's weakened queenside. Sveshnikov - A. Petros ian, USSR 1974, was an impressive exploitation: 1 5 . . . .!t:le 7 1 6 "t!fxd3 i.c8 1 7 lL!a3! 0-0 18 .!t:lc2 lt:lg6 1 9 .!t:l b4 lid8 20 "t!fg3 lie8 (20 . . . .!t:lf4 21 'Lld5 ! ) 2 1 i.g5 1!t'd6 2 2 lifd l t!fc5 2 3 i.d5 lib8 24 i.e3 "t!fxc3 25 .!t:la2 "ii'x a5 26 i.xa7 .!t:lf4 27 i.c4 lib2 28 1!t'c3 'ii'x c3 29 .!t:l xc3 .i.g4 30 lidc l .ll a 8 31 li xa6 li b4 1 -0. 12 a6! (1 1 2) ...

.

..

...

Black has at most one way out of deep trouble: a) 12 be 13 ab ±±. b) 12 . . ba 13 i.d5 .!t:lge7 ( 1 3 . . . i.b7 1 4 li xa6 ! ±, e.g. 1 4 .i.xf2+ 15 li xf2 li xa6 16 .!t:lg5) 14 i.g5 ...

.

. ..

102 Scotch Gambit: Section 2 'irg6 1 5 i.xe7 t;J xe7 1 6 i.xa8 ±

0-0 1 7 'itth 1 c6 1 8 t;Jbd2 i.e6 1 9

't!Va3 ! lixa8 2 0 'i!Vxd6 li e 8 2 1 lixa6 ±± I . Zaitsev-Aronin, Mos­ cow 1 964. c) 1 2 t;Jge7! is best . l . Zaitsev gave 1 3 i.d5 i.b6 1 4 i.g5 'i!Vg6 1 5 i.xe 7 rj;xe 7 1 6 lt:lbd2 i n annotations to the game with Aronin. Black still has all eight pawns ! But not for long: the two-pawn surplus ca n quickly be erased (e.g. by 'i!Vxb5xd3). Does White have an advantage? I am not entirely convinced. Black has several reasonable moves - 1 6 . . . lib8, 16 . . . .i.e6, 1 6 . . . .i.d7 . Unclear.

Declining with 5 . .

Peel-back: Retracting to Black's 4th move we can dismiss 4 . . . i.b4+?! a s a move that asks for trouble : 5 c3 de 6 0-0 (6 be i.a5 7 0-0 is also good) 6 . . . cb 7 i.xb2 with a slashing attack on the way, e.g. 7 .. . lt:lf6 8 a3 i.c5 9 lt:lg5 0-0 1 0 lt:l xf7 ! li xf7 1 1 i.xf7+ rj;xf7 1 2 e5 ±±. Much more sensible is 4 . lt:lf6, peeling out of the Scotch Gambit altogether. . .

ili�

Section 3 4 lbf6 (Two Knig hts Defe nce) . . .

1 2 3 4

...

Conclusion: Analysis does not conclusively prove 5 . . . d3 to be bad. My objections to it are based on principle rather than detailed calculation. Black's prospects are at best unexciting. But White needs to give careful consideration to the choice between the calm 10 1fxd3 and the forcing 10 1fb3 (followed by b5 and a6).

.

e4 t;Jf3 d4 i.c4

e5 t;Jc6 ed lt:lf6 (I 13)

1 13 w

The trouble with the Scotch Gambit is that it doesn't happen. For Black usually prefers 4 t;Jf6 to 4 .. . .i.c5 , and that takes us straight into the Two K nigh ts Defence. In the light of the two previous sections we can see the sense in opting out like this. It's certainly what I would play as Black . T h e normal Two Knights move­ order is 1 e4 e5 2 t;Jf3 t;Jc6 3 i.c4 t;Jf6 and now either 4 t;J g5 or 4 d4. Has White lost or gained by adopting the Scotch Gambit move­ order? I cannot see any gain u nless you h ave some special reason for not wishing to face 3 . . . i.c5 (leading to the Greco Gambit, the Evans Gambit, or some other ...

Scotch Gambit: Section 3

·

form of the Italian Game). What White has passed up is the chance to play 4 ll:Jg5. But I don't consider that much of a loss, inclining to Tarrasch's view that it's a duffer's move - even though some pretty distinguished 'duffers' have played it ! But what can one advise for White, now that he has got there ? I have difficulty in answering this question because I don't know any really good line against the Two Knights. I don't believe that there is a line that promises White any advantage. Nor can I give a proper survey of the possibilities for that you would have to consult some work devoted to the Two Knights, such as Estrin's 1 983 book The Two Knights Defence (Batsford). What we can do is discuss some of the salient features of the two main lines, commencing with 5 e5 and 5 0-0. Ta ke 5 e5 first. This is a move I don't like very much. Black gets a solid central position and the bishop pair, and he can eventually prepare . . . f6, eliminating White's central pawn an � initiating play along the f- and e-files. The main line runs: 5 6 7 8 9 10

e5 .ib5 ll:J xd4 .ie3 .ixc6 0-0

d5

ll:Je4 .icS .id7 be

'f!Je1 (1 1 4)

4 . . . lilf6 (Two Knights Defence) 103 1 14 w

11

lle1

White wants to kick the knight on e4 with f3 , but I I f3? lild6 favours Black. 11 12 13

f3 'it'd2

0-0 lZJ gS f6!

Black is able to get this in because after 1 4 ef 1!¥xf6 15 .ixg5 the knight on d4 hangs. So Black has completed his opening scheme and has a good game. In favour of the 5 e5 line one can at least say that it does not terminate in early forced draws (as so many sharp openings do). A complex middle­ game battle should ensue. But in my opinion there is a tendency towards + rather than t. What of 5 0-0? Here everything depends on the level at which you are operating. At an advanced level , against an opponent who knows the theory, the serious winning prospects are practically zero . At a humbler level it is an excellent weapon since many of the side variations end in quick wins for White, who is able to play

104 Scotch Gambit: Section 3

natural ,active moves with little risk of getting into trouble. The main line runs: 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

0-0

lit e 1 i.xd5

lt:lc3 lt:l xe4 i.d2

ttJxe4 d5 1!Vxd5 'ii'a 5 i.e6 1i'd5

i.g5 ( 1 15)

1 15 B

There were plenty of other moves on the way! But for Black at least deviations from this path are disadvantageous , if not disas­ trous. It is still a bit tricky. For example, 11 ... i.c5? neatly loses a piece to 1 2 c4! ( 1 2 . . . 1!Vxc4 1 3 IIc l ; 1 2 . . . de 1 3 lt:lf6+; 1 2 . . . 1i'f5 1 3 lt:lh4). 1 1 . . . i.e7?! is also suspect because of 12 i.xe7 �xe7 13 c4 ! 1!Vxc4 ( 1 3 . . . de 1 4 1!t'c2 ! and the black king is dangerously exposed) 14 lite 1 1!t'd5 15 l:tc5 'it'd 7 16 'ii'c 1 liteS 1 7 b4 and White has good attacking chances. But what every well-briefed Black should know is that the safe and solid choice is 1 1 .. . i.d6 !, when White hardly has anything better than 12 i.f6

4 . . . tDf6 (Two Knights Defence)

0-0 1 3 lt:l xd4 ttJxd4 1 4 1i'xd4 't!Vxd4 1 5 i.xd4 with a completely equal ending. But what if Black wants to win? Unfortunately, I can hardly hope to please both sides! However, if Black's ambitions overreach the boring equality that emerged at the end of the last line, he really ought to go into the Max Lange Attack. Objectively this may not be any stronger than the 5 . . . lt:lxe4 line against 5 0-0, but at least Black adopts a more aggressive and uncompromising posture and White's best moves are not so easy to find. It is n't all that helpful to set out the main line of the Max Lange without explaining why it is the main line (which space precludes me from doing), but for the sake of completeness, here it is : 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12

0-0 e5 ef llel+

lt:lg5 lt:lc3 lt:lce4 g4

i.c5 d5 de i.e6 1i'd5 1Wf5 0-0-0 'ii'e 5 fe

13 lt:lxe6 14 fg 1 4 i.g5 ! ? is an important alter­ native, best answered by 1 4 . . . g6 1 5 f7 i.e7 16 f4 1i'g7 1 7 i.xe7 lt:lxe7 18 lt:lg5 d3 ! 19 lt:lxe6 1!t'xfl 20 lt:lxd8 litxd8 with fair compensation for the exchange. 14 lithg8

Scotch Gambit: Section 3 15

1 16 B

.i. h6 (1 1 6)

White has made a lot of progress on the far right wing, but Black has an impressive centraliz­ ation to set against this. The best course seems to be 15 . . . d3 ! 16 c3 d2 ! 17 lil e2 ( 1 7 t0xd2? .i.xf2+) 17 . . lild3 when there are two .

4 ... t0f6 (Two Knights Defence) 105

plausible continuations, which both end in a draw: a) 1 8 'W'fl 'W'd5 19 lild 1 t0e5 20 t0f6 1Wf3 2 1 t0 xg8 1Wxg4+ 22 'it;h 1 (22 1Wg2? 1Wxe2 23 t0e7+ \t>d7! H) 22 . . . 'ii'f3+ 23 �g 1 'ii'g4+ with perpetual check. b) 18 t0xc5 'ii'x c5 1 9 lilxd2 t0e5 20 lilxd3 cd 21 \t>g2 "@d5+ 22 �g3 t0f7 23 'ird2 'ird6+ 24 \t>g2 e5 25 g5 'it'g6 26 xg2 comes 27 . . . i.d5 28 lle l lle8 29 'it>f3 f5 , and 27 'it>h l i.d5 ! 28 ll xe7 :iit g4+ mates.

The second game shows that even when the theoretical assessment i s in his favour Black must still tread carefully. Ciocaltea-M. Kovacs Baja 1 971 e5 e4 1 li:le6 2 lilf3 d4 ed 3 de 4 e3 li:lxc3 5 i.b4 d6 6 i.c4 't!fb3 7 Even the winner did not consider this a very impressive alternative to the usual 7 0-0. 7 i.xe3+ 8

be

In his lnformator notes Ciocaltea gave '8 't!fxc 3 ! ' , but did not explain what the intention might be i n t he event of 8 . . . 't!ff6. (Perhaps 9 't!rb3 h6 10 i.d2 !?.) 8 1td7 9 't!fc2 li:lf6 0-0 0-0 10 lle8 h3 11

1 10 Goring Gambit: Introduction Hereabouts an assessment of + is appropriate, as in the peel-back note to Goring Gambit 2. Black only needs to find an effective role for the bishop on c8 . h6 12 .id3 13 Il:bl a6 14 Il:e1 lt:l eS de 15 ltJ xeS 16 f4 'it'd6 ( 1 20) There was a good alternative in 1 6 . . . ef 1 7 .ixf4 'it'c6. 1 20 w

rs 11 . See how persistently White plays for the restriction of the u ndeveloped bishop on c8 - h 3 , Il: b 1 , f5 . Nonetheless, Black has the better chances after 17 . . . Il:d8! 18 .ifl b6 (intending . . . .ib7 with pressure on e4). bS? 17 c4! 18 Now White gets his bishop back onto.the a2-g8 diagonal and is able to show that Black still has a weak point o n fl . Il: d8 18 be 19 Il:b3 20 .ixc4 'it'd4+ 21 'Ct>h2 .id7 An unsatisfactory attempt to develop the problem piece. Il: ab8 22 Il: g3 Black is in trouble - after 22 . . . ltJh5 23 l:i d3 'it'b6 24 Il:ed 1 it becomes obvious how badly the bishop on d7 is located . 23 .ixh6 lt:lhS li! b2 24 JigS 'ilxd 1 25 �d 1 Il:b6 26 li!xd1

Goring Gambit: Introduction

111

27 llxhS gh (1 2 1) Although material is level Black is quite lost because his bishop o n d 7 i s in a permanent pin a n d all h i s pawns are vulnerable. The rest of the game speaks for itself.

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Section 1 M a i n Li ne with 8 .i; g 4 ! . . .

1 2 3 4

e4 lLlf3 d4 e3

eS lLle6 ed de

lidS i.b3 ll xh6 lld3 llhd6 f6+ ! i.e2 ll3xd4 c;t> g3 g 6 i.xh3

5 lLl xe3 i.b4 6 i.e4 d6 7 0-0 i.xe3 8 be i.g4! (122) Since 8 lLlc6 and 8 i.e6 are also good moves, perhaps it is just a matter of taste which of them o ne prefers . I like 8 i.g4 .. .

. . .

. . .

112 Goring Gambit: Section 1 122 w

because it allows White very little scope for attack and enables Black to trade in his extra pawn for something which is more valuable - a permanent positional advantage. Playing this line should not ove rload the memory since Black can operate on princi ple rather than tackling a fresh set of problems in calculation at each move. 9 �b3 Regrettable, since it allows the f-pawns to be doubled . But what else is W hite to play? 9 i.a3 lt:Jf6 transposes into Penrose-Smyslov, Munich 1 958 (see Go ring Gambit 2, variation B, p. 1 1 5 ) - and that is known to be inadequa te . 9 ..txf3 'i.t>f8 I0 ..txf7+ 11 gf lUeS 12 i.xg8 It is a serious matter to part with this bishop, but 1 2 i.e6 is neatly refuted by 12 . . . lt::l x f3+ 1 3 'i!;lg2 1!Vf6 1 4 1Vxb7 lt:J h4+ 1 5 'i.t>g3 1!t'f3+ 1 6 xh4 h6! =t=F O 'Kelly. 12 llxg8

Main Line with 8 . . .

Jl.g4i

f4 13 l 3 fi'xb7 g5 + c a n hardly be contemplated . 13 lt::l f3 + 1 4 'i!;>g2 lt::l h 4+ I S 'i.t>hl �d7! (123)

16 fS? ! Certainly not 1 6 fi'xb7 ?? fi'h 3 ++ . However, White has just one chance of parryi ng the threat of . . . �h3 and avoiding crippling positional disadvantage 16 c4! That move increases the potential of White's queen and bishop, in p articular clearing lines along the third rank and the a 1 -h8 diagonal. 16 . . . �g4 can be met by 17 �g3 and if then 1 7 . . . �e2 1 8 i.e3 with a good ga me. After 16 f5 by contrast White's pieces are not active enough to compensate for his weak pawns. 16 1lkc6! In the game we a re following Black actually played 1 6 ... lle8, which is inaccurate because it allows 17 'ikxb7. O'Kelly claimed that 1 7 . . . 'ti'a4 1 8 f3 'it'c2 was +, but -

Main Line with 8 . . . .tg4! I I 3

Goring Gambit: Section I White has 1 9 'it'b2 'i!t'd3 20 'fff2 g5 21 .txg5! Ilxe4 22 .txh4 ± Milukas­ Sutkus, corres 1 976. Ile8 f3 17 18 'i!t'c2 In Winter-Wason , corres 1 98 384, White tried 1 8 .tg5! ? and after 18 . . . Il xe4 19 .txh4 Il xh4 20 �ae l 1!¥c4? 2 1 1!¥xb7 obtained good chances . However, there was no need for B lack to give the pawn back: after 20 . . . Ilc4! the threatened penetration with 1!¥e6 is prevented and it is clear that Black's extra pawn and sounder formation should tell in the long ru n . Since writing this I found that 20 . . . Ilc4! has been tested in Richter-Volz, 19th German Corres Ch 1 983-85: 20 . . . Ilc4 2 1 Ile3 g6? ! 22 f6 rtifl 23 Il e4?! b5 24 a4 a6 25 'i!t'a2 Ile8 26 ab ab 27 1!¥d2 Ucxe4 28 1!¥h6 �xf6 29 fe+ rtie7 30 'i!t'xh7+ �d8 and Black was clearly winning (0- 1 , 35). This is a potentially misleading example, since the obvious 23 Ilfe 1 would have given White dangerous attack­ ing chances (as Richter indicates i n his annotations in Fernschach). In my opinion Black runs fewer risks by answering 21 Ile3 with 2 1 . . . �fl (intending to untangle with . . . Ilf8 and . . . �g8 ) and if then 22 Ilfe 1 Ilf8 23 Il e7+ �g8 24 Il g 1 Ilfl +. 18 g5! 19 fg lt:Jxg6 h i lt:\e7 1 6 Ilae l 0-0 17 f5 a 5 ? ! ( 1 7 . . . 'i!Yb6 must be better) I S ltJf4! a4 1 9 't!Vd l e5 20 lt:\h5 ± Ribli­ Kovacs, Hungary I970 . ll 't!Vxb7 Now 1 1 ltJg5 ltJd8 12 f4 h6 1 3 ltJ h 3 1¥c6 puts Black a vital tempo ahead of Ribli-Kovacs. Ilb8 ll 12 't!Va6 lt:\ge7 0-0 ( 1 26) 1 3 .t g5 126 w

Black has two other p er fe c tly reasonable moves besides 8 . . . .tg4: A 8 . .. .te6 B 8 ... lt:\ f6 Indeed, there is even a fou rth 8th move option - 8 . . . 't!Ve7. Bu t that Jacks i n depende nt significance if best play is (as it s ee m s to be) 9 e5 ltJxe5 10 ltJxe5 de l l 't!Vb3 lt:\f6 1 2 .ta3 c5 I 3 .tb5+ with transposition into variation B (8 . . . lt:\f6). A

Bjerring- Lein , Varna I 974, con ­ tinued 1 4 li fd1 ltJg6 1 5 l't'a4 Ilxf3! 16 gf lif8 17 .ie3 e5 IS 'it>fl lt:\h4 + . Clearly White must not allow Black this s o rt of chance in the f­ file. So the correct course is 14 .txe7! Il b6 I5 't!Va4 ( 1 5 't!Vxb6 ab I6 .txf8 \t>xf8 I take to be + in view of Black's better pawns) I 5 . . . 'ii'xe7 1 6 ltJd4 =.

8 9 10

.txe6 't!Vb3

.te6 fe 'ikd7!

Black should shun the pa ssive 10 . .. 't!Vc8?! I I ltJg5 ltJd8 I 2 f4 h6 1 3 lt:\h3 when he is left with problems of mobilisation. For

B 8 9

lt:\f6

e5! White needs to open avenues of attack before Black can consolidate. 9 .ta3?! works fine in the event of

Goring Gambit: Seciion 2

Black's 8th Move Alternatives

9 0-0? l O e 5 ! , but p roves inadequate against 9 . i.g4! as demonstrated i n Penrose-Smyslov, Munich 1958: 9 i.a3 i.g4 ! 10 i.b5 ( 1 0 't!fb3 .!Da5 ! l l i.xt7+ c;i>f8 1 2 't!i'a4 i.xf3 1 3 gf ..t>xt7 1 4 't!i'xa5 lle8 +, a variation give n by Alekhine, is a near relative of the 8 i.g4 scheme) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 i. xc6 b e 12 e5 .!Dd5 13 't!i'd3 (perhaps 1 3 c4 .!D b6 is less bad for White than the game) 13 . . . lle8 14 ed .!Df4! 1 5 'tli'c4 .!De2+ 1 6 c;i>h 1 i.xf3 1 7 gf cd 1 8 'ti'xc6 llc8 19 'ti'xd6 "i!Vh4 +.

i.a3 ± was given by Levy. But Black has better in 12 ... 'it'f6! . de 1 0 .!Dxe5 11 't!¥b3 1 1 't!t'xd8+ �xd8 12 i.xt7 h i lt:Jf6 I9 lt:le4 0-0 20 lt:Jg5 e5 2 I f5 (2 I lt:Jf3 ! ?) 2 I . . . c5 22 ll:le6 Ilf7 2 3 j_g5 d5 oo. I would prefer Black's chances, though it was actually White who won. B 6

lt:\(6

7 'tib3 1t'd7 The defiant 7 . . . lt:laS should always be examined when White lines up on f7 like this. Here the answer would be 8 .txf7+ ct>e7 9 1t'a3 r3;xf7 IO W'xa5, which is awkward for Black because as soon as White has played 0-0 he threatens e4-e5 . 8 lt:lgS lt:leS Even though it is clear that the

5 . . . d6 123

knight on e5 is soon going to be kicked by f2-f4 this is better then the abject 8 ... lt:ld8 9 f4 and now: a) 9 h6 10 lt:lf3 .i.e7 I I e5 lt:lh7 I 2 .i.e3 ± intending 0-0-0 Botterill and Harding. b) 9 ... c6 10 e5 ( 1 0 0-0?! b5 ) 10 . . . de ( 1 0 . . . d 5 I I i.d3 ! ±) I I fe lt:lg4 12 i.f4 't!ff5 13 Ilfl ll:le6 ( 1 3 . . . h6 ? I 4 ll:lxf7) I 4 lt:Jxe6 fe (Smit) and n ow just I5 0-0-0 gives White an overwhelming position. •••

9 10

.tbS f4 (137)

c6

137 B

The position poses a problematic decision between: B1 1 0 ... cb B2 1 0 . . . lt:l eg4 Against 1 0 . . . lt:lg6 the obvious

I I .tc4 is not so good because of I I . . . d5! 1 2 ed .i.c5, Lutikov­ Lisitsin, USS R 1 962, or I2 lt:lxd5 ltlxd5 1 3 ed .tc5 with a dangerous counterattack. Kajkamdjozov sug­ gested 1 1 .td3 h6 I 2 ll:lf3 .i.e7 13 J.d2 intending 0-0-0, but more incisive is Velimirovic's idea 1 1 eS! de 1 2 .tc4 or 1 1 . . . cb 1 2 ef gf 1 3 lt:lge4 ±.

5 . . . d6

124 Goring Gambit: Section 4 B1 10

cb

lbg4 11 fe The older move 1 1 ... de should cost Black the game after 12 i.e3! (138) 138 B

the check at b4 is a saving resource enables us to discover the rebuttal 13 0-0! ±, e.g. 13 . . . a4 14 'W'xb5 intending Itd 1 or 1 3 . . . .tb4 14 lld 1 'W'c7 ( 14 . . . 1!Ve7 15 liJd5 liJxd5 16 llxf7) 15 liJxb5 'W'e7 16 a3 .tc5 17 .txc5 9xc5+ 18 rl;;h 1 0-0 1 9 liJxf7 ! ±:±: . 12

h3

A slow move, but best in view of a) 12 0-0 de 13 lbxf7 .tcS+ 14 h 8 17 lbg5 lbf6 18 't!fd3 't!fd7 1 9 llde l ( ±?). Fine suggested 1 4 lie3 ! ? . 10 e5 lbg4 (1 44) 144 w

Black's choice here lies between: A 6 ... .i b4 + B 6 ... d6

A leads to fantastic complications, but, unfortunately for White, B just seems to be solid and good. A 6

.ib4+

Thus we enter the cut and thrust action of the Danish Gambit, introduced by Severin From in Paris 1 867. The traditional move order - a sort of accelerated Goring - is 1 e4 e5 2 d4 ed 3 c3 de 4 1.c4 cb 5 .ixb2 lbf6 6 ltJc3 lbc6 7

One cannot really hope . .to produce a definitive analysis in such a complicated position. But I think that any player with attacking flair ought to be happy with White's chances. 11

lbd5

Possibly good, but very messy is

5 .t.c-4

128 Goring Gambit: Section 5 1 1 h4, e.g. 1 1 . . . l0cxe5 1 2 il:l g5 g6

1 3 l0ce4 .tf5 14 'iVb3 and if now 14 . . . .txe4 15 il:l xe4 il:l xc4 1 6 1Wxc4 .ta5 1 7 f3 :±:±: (Botterill and Harding). 11 12

.tc5 ed

The sacrifice 12 l0f6+ ! ? has been played, but I don't think it can really be sound: 1 2 . . . gf 1 3 ef .txf2 (to answer 14 llJ g5 with . . . .te3+) 14 lithe 1 .te3+ 1 5 �b 1 ( 1 5 litxe3 ! ?) 1 5 . . . .th6 oo . Black can also defend with 12 . . . l0xf6 13 ef gf 14 g4 il:le5 1 5 g 5 ! ? 'iVd7 ! (Botterill and Harding). 12 13

cd h4

White could also try 1 3 lithe ! intending 1Wc3. h6

13

Since this does n o t stop il:lg5 one might wonder whether it is the best defence. 13 llJce5 comes into consideration too. I am no longer convinced by 13 . . . il:lce5 14 il:lg5 g6 15 llJe4! ? (Botterill and Harding) 15 . . . .tf5 oo . ...

14 15 16 17 18

145 B

hg llJ g5! hg 1Wxg5+ .trs f4 .txc2 fg �xc2 (145)

White is still two pawns down and the queens are off the board, but the attack persists thanks to · the activity of White's pieces, the open h-file and the important g5 pawn. Here are some of the possibilities:

a) 1 8 b5 1 9 .td3 f5 20 g6 ! il:le3+ 21 llJ xe3 .txe3 22 .txb5 ± Ashcroft-Harding, corres 1 97 1 72. b) 1 8 litfe8 19 lith5! ( 1 9 lith4 lite4!) 19 . . . il:le3+ (but now 19 . . . lite4 2 0 .td3 ±) 20 il:lxe3 .txe3 2 1 litdh 1 �f8 22 lit e 1 ! �g8 2 3 g6 ±. c) 1 8 ... llJ ge5 19 lith3 l0g6! is unrefuted since 20 llJf6+ gf 2 1 .txf6 intending lit h 1 and lith8 can be met by 2 1 . . . .td4 - though White still has compensation for the pawn after 22 .txd4 l0xd4+ 23 litxd4. •..

•.•

B

6 146 w

d6! (1 46)

Goring Gambit: Section 5

Black's 8th Move Alternatives 129

It is the doom of the Goring that against this simple little move White lacks any convincing attack­ ing plan.

14 liJc3 c6 I S liad l llg8 1 6 lL'lf3 'tWf7 =t= Valdes-Jensen, corres 1 972-74.

7

0-0

Two other moves have been tried: a) 7 1!Vb3 lL'laS ! (As usual ! 7 . . . Vd7 and 7 . . . ll:l h6 are obscure) 8 .txf7+ h8

lO f7+! 'it>xf7 I I lll g 5+ (152)

�- � .

152 B

b2) 9 J.b4+ l O J.d2 .txd2+ I I lt!xd2 0-0 I 2 lll xe4 lieS ! I 3 0-0-0 llxe4 I4 \i'h5 g6 I 5 f7+ ( I 5 \i'g5 J.f5 I 6 f3 lle6 I 7 g4? ll xf6! intending . . . llc6+ Wade) I 5 . . . 'it>g7 I 6 f8\i'+ \i'xf8 I 7 \i'xd5 \i'f4+ I S 'it>b i (15 1) ...

-

151 B

11 'it>f6?! (A mysterious king move . Surely l i . . . �e8 ! was better. If then 12 lll x e4 'fke7 is not bad for Black) 1 2 g4 h6 13 h4 .ig6 14 lt!xe4+ .txe4 1 5 'fkxe4 \i'e7 (loses, but so does everything else by now) I6 .tg5+ ! hg I 7 hg+ 'it>xg5 1 8 f4+ 'it>f6 19 g5+ � 20 J.c4+ 'it>e8 2 1 1!t'xe7+ lll xe7 22 litxh8 ±± de 23 lith2 cb 24 llxb2 b6 25 lld l c6 26 lii: e 2 b5 27 J.b3 c5 28 .te6 g6 29 f5 1 -0. Another possibility is 8 "ti'xf6 9 lll xe4 de 1 0 1i'xe4+ 'fke6, which is reasonably safe (and hence hardly in the spirit of this lively variation ! ) but perhaps not quite equalising: 1 1 J.d3 ! ( 1 1 \i'xe6+ J.xe6 1 2 cd 0-0-0 is easy for Black) 1 1 . . de 1 2 0-0 \i'xe4 1 3 J.xe4 .td7 (Against 1 3 . . cb Velimirovic gives 14 .txb2 J.d7 1 5 .txc6 intending lii: fe l ' ±'. However, I don't see why this should be worse than the game) 1 4 J.xc6 .txc6 1 5 lii: e l + 'it>f7 1 6 lt!e5+ �6 1 7 lt! xc6 be 1 8 be t Velimirovic­ Ree, A msterdam 1976. . . .

Wade here proposes I S . . . c6 I 9 "t!fb 3 llxd4 as a n improvement on IS . . J.f5?! I9 'it>a i liaeS 20 \i'xb7 lite I 2 I J.b5 ± Gheorghiu, Goulandris and Vrondissis v. Wade, Georgopoulos and Rose, consultation game, London 1 972. b3) 9 \i'xf6?! lO f3 .tb4+ is reminiscent of something we have seen before 6 . . d5 instead of Lasker's 6 . . f5 . Black does not get enough for his piece after 1 1 J.d2 ! .txd2+ ( 1 1 . . \i'xd4 1 2 \i'b5+) I 2 lt!xd2 \i'xd4 1 3 fe "ihb2 1 4 \i'b5+. =

.

...

-

.

.

.

8

d3

Boey recommended this. 8 .tf5 was roughly treated in Diickstein-Wittmann, Kapfenberg 1976, though there is an obvious improvement available: 9 lt!xe4 de ...

...

.

.

The Gambit Declined 133

Goring Gambit: Section 6 9 'ife3 Naturally White could just play 9 'ifxd3 lDxf6 - probably roughly equal, but untested . There is also the po ssibility 9 fg .i.xg7 10 'ifxd3, when White is a pawn ahead, but this looks hazardous after 10 . . . .i.f5 . .i.c5 9 Now that White can capture on d3 with the bishop on fl 9 .i.f5 is less likely to be a useful move, e.g. 9 . . . .if5 10 .ixd3 .i.c5 1 1 fg lii: g8 1 2 lDd4 lhg7 1 3 .i.xe4 de 1 4 ltJ xc6 .ixe3 15 lbxd8 .i.xd2+ 16 .i.xd2 ± Supancic-Flear, London 1 978. 1Ig8 fg 10 ltJd4 (153) 11 ...

153 B

The Danish IM Iskov has had two disasters with the white pieces from this position: 1. Iskov-Hebden, Benedictine Inter­ national, Manchester 1 979: 1 1 1!¥e7 1 2 ltJ2b3 lb xd4 1 3 cd .i.b4+ 14 �d l ?? ltJxf2+! 0- 1 . For if 1 5 'ifxf2 .i.g4+. 2. Iskov-Kaiszauri, Oslo 1 980: 1 1 . . .i.xd4 1 2 c d .i.f5 1 3 .i.xd3 ( 1 3 ...

.

f3? lDb4 +) 1 3 . . . 'ife7 14 .i.b5 0-0-0 1 5 .ixc6 be 16 lD xe4 de (Kaiszauri observes that 16 . . . .i.xe4! ? was i n fact possible a s 1 7 f3 ?! \!fxg7 1 8 fe allows 1 8 . . . l!t"xg2 19 llfl 1Idf8 ! 20 'ife2 lii: x fl + 2 1 'ifxfl 1!¥xe4+ 2 2 �d l 'ifxd4+ 23 �c2 llgl +. So White should play 1 7 0-0 'ifxg7 1 8 g3 oo) 1 7 'ifc3 e3 ?! (j ust 1 7 ... 1Ixg7 - Kaiszauri) 1 8 .i.xe3 lixg7 1 9 'ifxc6 (Kaiszauri laconically gives ' 1 9 0-0 ! ±' . I take the point to be that the obvious counter 19 . . . .ih3 is met not by 20 .i.g5 ? .i.xg2 2 1 .i.xe7 .i.f3+ and mates, but by 20 g3 ! .i.xf1 2 1 lii: xf 1 when White's advantages in quan­ tity and quality of pawns outweigh the exchange) 19 . . . .i.e4 20 1!t'c5 1!¥f7 21 llc l 1Ixg2 22 1!t'e5 .i.b7 (not 22 . . . 1Ie8? 23 1Ixc7+ ! ) 23 1Ic5 lig4 24 f3? (24 llfl was better) 24 . . . 1Ig2 25 .i.f4 1Id7 26 �d l .i.xf3+ 27 �c l lig4 28 .i.g3 .i.xh 1 0- 1 . These results make the position of the last diagram seem unhealthy for White. But is that really so? In the second game White's loss is not primarily attributable to the opening. Meanwhile, Iskov m ust have thought that there was a worthwhile improvement on his game with Hebden, or he would not have repeated the line. Well, 14 .i.d2 certainly improves on 1 4 �d 1 ?? , though whether it is good for White is another matter. An interesting possibility is 12 .i.xd3! ? lDxd4 1 3 c d .i.xd4 14 1!rxd4 lDg3+

134 Goring Gambit: Section 6 1 5 �d 1 ltlxh 1 1 6 lt:Jf3 ; Black has a problem about getting the knight on h i out, but it is unfortunate that the king is one of White's centralised pieces. All I cim say is that the 4 . . . ltlf6 line offers chances for both sides and needs further investigation. I do not know of any secure way for White to get a plus. B d5

4

The most common way of declining the gambit, not so frisky as 4 . . . ltlf6, yet bespeaking a less craven tendency than 4 . . . d3. 5 6

ed

The Gambit Declined middlegame accentuates the dy­ namic potential of White's isolated d-pa wn, and the half-open c-file is bound to pose a threat to Black's king after . . . 0-0-0. I will slice variations into: Bl 6 ... lt:Jf6 B2 6 ... .tg4 .i. b4 + B3 6 .••

- with the warning that one must be on the alert for transpositions. The Capablanca plan (B3) involves . . . .i.g4 and . . . .i.b4 and it does not matter much which Black plays first, though he m ight wish to lure White into B2 1 with 6 . . . .tg4.

'ti'xd5

cd (154)

154 B

Bl 6 7 8

lt:Jf6

ltlc3 .i.b4 lt:Je4 .tel Black needs to play actively here as White is better after 8 .••

0-0 9 0-0: a) 9 ... 'tWaS 10 .i.d2 l::t d 8 ( 1 0 . . .

Although Black has tried a number of different moves, the basic choice is between two policies. Either he can go in for a middlegame fight with . . . 0-�. or else he can seek simplification through ex­ changes designed to reduce White's attacking capacity. Capablanca favoured the second course and he was probably right. A complex

ltl d 5 1 1 ltlxd5 'ti'xd5 1 2 .i.xb4 lt:Jxb4 1 3 lt:Je5 ± Reti-Breyer, Baden 1 9 1 4) 1 1 a3 .i.e7 12 d5 ! (the isolated pawn shows its strength: if 12 . . . ltlxd5 1 3 lt:Ja4 ±±) 1 2 . . . ltlb8 1 3 .i.c4 ± Penrose-Fairhurst, Glasgow 1955. b) 9 . . . 'ifd8 1 0 .tg5 h 6 1 1 .i.h4 .te7 1 2 l::t c l .i.g4 13 lt:Je5 ! .i.xe2 1 4 ltlxe2 lt:Jb4 1 5 'ti'b3 ;!;: Velimirovic­ Holmov, Yugoslavia v USSR, Sukhumi 1 966. 9 10

.i.d2

be

.i.xc3 lt:Jxd2

Goring Gambit: Section 6

The Gambit Declined 135

A more enterprising plan for Black is to avoid this exchange and play for s trength on c4 and e4 with . . . ti)aS, . . . bS and . . . fS . This procedure never seems to be adopted in modern tournaments, but there is a fascinating historical precedent, Nyholm-Alekhine, Stock­ holm 19 1 2: 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I 0-0 ti)aS 1 2 liel b S 1 3 .td3 fS 1 4 a4 l£lb3 (155)

Ljubojevic-Szabo, Wijk aan Zee 1 973. 12 13

b6 0-0 (156)

156 B

155 w

I S lia3 ba 1 6 l ha4 ti) bxd2 1 7 l£Jxd2 l£Jxc3! 1 8 \!t'c2! ( 1 8 Wa 1 'i!Vd7 1 9 liaS ..-xd4 20 .tc4+ xd2 lt:lb4 14 .i.b5+ 'it>d6 1 5 nac 1 lt:lf6 1 6 lt:lc7 lt:lxa2 (if 1 6 . . . nc8 not 1 7 lt:le8+? nxe8 1 8 .i.xe8 lt:l xe8 + . but simply 17 a3 ! ±) 17 llc4 ! ±. Note that 1 1 ... ltJb4? is no good because of 1 2 .i.b5+ �c8 1 3 .i.f4 ! . 12

.i.d3

Sax's analysis continues: a) 12 . . . .i.g6 13 .i.xg6 hg 14 .i.e3 lt:lc2+ 1 5 �d2 lt:lxa1 1 6 .i.xa7! ±. b) 1 2 . . . .i.b4+ 13 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 14 �xd2 lt:le7 1 5 l:l:ac l nxa8 1 6 nc4

The Gambit Declined I 37

Goring Gambit: Section 6 ltJdf5 1 7 g4 ltJd6 1 8 gh i. There is a big hole in the first line. Instead of 1 5 . . . ltJxa 1 Black plays 15 . . . ltJxe3 followed by . . . .i.b4+ (or j ust . . . .i.d6), . . . ltJf6 and . . . llxa8 =F. I would not recommend 7 · ltJc3 for White. Even if Sax's analysis were sound, the minute endgame advantage in line b after 1 8 . . . ltJxc4+ 1 9 .i.xc4 'i!i>d6 would hardly justify the risks involved. B22 7

0-0-0! ?

.i.e2

Of course 7 . .i.xf3 8 .i.xf3 't!Vxd4?? loses to 9 .i.xc6+. But 7 . .. .i.xf3 8 .i.xf3 1Wc4! is quite a good alternative, distinguishable from B3 only by the fact that Black's bishop still has the option of going to d6 or e7 rather than b4. 7 . . . .i.b4+ 8 ltJ c 3 is transpositional: 8 . . . .i.xf3 9 .i.xf3 1Wc4 puts us straight into B3, whilst 8 ... 0-0-0 leads to the . . . .i. b4 options in the notes to moves 8 and 9 of the present line. .

8

ltJc3

.

't!fa5

This has the obvious disadvantage of making the queen a potential target for White's attacking efforts (a3 and b4 or .i.d2 followed by knight moves). But the alternatives are not appealing: .i.b4 9 0-0 a) 8 @'d7 1 0 .i.e3 ltJf6 1 1 'ti'a4 a1) 9 lbd5 12 ltJ xd5 'ti'xd5 and White gets a powerful attack after either 1 3 lifc 1 .i.d6 14 b4!, Mieses.••

•••

Lowy , Vienna 1 907, or 1 3 a3 .i. d6 1 4 h 3 .i.h5 1 5 b4, Levy-Kraidman, Lugano 1 968. a2) 9 .i.xc3 1 0 be ltJf6 1 1 .i. e3 ± Niedermayer-Fridh, Vesely 1 967. b) 8 ... 'i!Yh5 ! ? 9 h3 ltJf6 does at least give White a chance to go wrong: b l ) 10 0-0? .i.d6! 1 1 hg ltJxg4 1 2 lle 1 .i.h2+ 1 3 'i!i>fl .i.e5 1 4 .i.d3 1t'h l + 15 'i!i>e2 ti'xg2 and Black's attack won through in Stein­ Levin, Kiev 1 960. b2) 10 .i.e3 ! .i.d6 1 1 "@a4 lit he8 1 2 0-0-0 ± - Botterill and Harding. ltJf6 0-0 9 Other options: a) At this stage probably most .i.b4 a people wou l d think 9 poor move. But the position could well arise by some other order of moves, with 617/8 . . . .i.b4. The game Estrin-Sevecek, 6th World Corres Ch, 1 968-7 1 , shows how the queen on a5 I bishop on b4 line-up can accelerate White's attack: 9 . .. .i.b4 (by transposition) 1 0 .i.e3 ltJge7 ( 1 0 . . . .i.xc3 1 1 be @'xc3 is said to be too dangerous, but in truth Black might as well try it. Keres gives 12 li c l 1t'a3 1 3 llxc6 be 1 4 ltJe5 ±, but 1 3 . . . .i.xf3 ! ? i s not s o clear. Estrin suggests 1 3 ltJe5 i.xe2 14 t!lxe2 ltJxe5 1 5 de 'and B lack's defence is difficult') 1 1 ltJa4! ltJg6 ( 1 1 . . . ltJxd4 1 2 .i.xd4 ltJc6 1 3 a3 ! .i. e 7 14 b4 't!t'h5 15 b5! - Estrin. Relatively best is 1 1 . . . ltJf5 12 a3 i.e7 1 3 b4 'ird5 as in a game N eimanis..•

•.•

138 Goring Gambit: Section 6

Saldre, 1 970. Estrin suggests that 14 4Jc3 '4Wd7 15 'it'a4 would give White a dangerous attack but I wonder what the intention is after 1 5 . . . J.xf3 1 6 J.xf3 4Jcxd4) 12 h3 .te6 1 3 a3 J.e7 14 b4 t!ld5 1 5 4Jc3 'ttd 7 1 6 'tlra4 J.xh3 1 7 d5 4Jb8 ( 1 7 . . J.xg2 1 8 de! ±±. But note 17 . . 4Jce5 18 4Jxe5 4Jxe5 1 9 'trxa7 'ttf5 20 '@aS+ 'i!?d7 2 1 J.b5+ c6 22 tlrxb7+ .3

i.xc6+ be 'i!¥xc6 is unthematic and

A better t ry for advantage, if only because it is slightly provocative,

inferior (notwithstanding an ECO assessment of ' ='), e.g. 1 1 0-0 ltle7 1 2 1!t'b3 ! i.xc 3 1 3 be 0-0 14 c4 ± Penrose-Barden, London 195 8.

10 1!rxb3 10 1!rxd4? would be foolish: 1 1 i.e 3 1!rd6 12 li d l 1!re7 1 3 0-0

10

10

...

11

We2+

...

ll:lf6 1 4 i.g5 ±± Enklaar. 11 ab (162)

140 Goring Gambit: Section 6

Declined

The Gambit

Ghizdavu-Thornally, Los Angeles 1975

162 B

.

13 14 15 16

llxa7 ll a8 .ixa8 .ie4

.ic5 lha8 lt:le7 0-0 (163)

1 63 w

ltl x d 4 11 Black can also refuse to be tempted: l l . . ltlge7 1 2 0-0 a6 1 3 lla4 ( 1 3 ltld5 0-0-0 1 4 ltl xb4 ltlxb4 1 5 .if4?! lt:lec6 + Raaste- Wester­ inen , Finland 1 979) 1 3 . . . .id6 1 4 .ig5 f6 1 5 .ih5+ lt:lg6 1 6 ll e I + lt:l e 7 1 7 .id2 0-0-0 Lju bojevic­ Ree, Amsterdam 1972. ll b8 1 2 .ixb7 Black plays it safe . There is more fun to be had with 12 . . . ltlc2+ 1 3 e2 lt:l x a 1 and now: a) 14 .i x a8 ltlxb3 1 5 .ic6+ ct>d8 1 6 lld I + c8 1 7 ltld5 .ic5 Ljubojevic-Stein, Yugoslavia-USSR 1 972. b) 1 4 .ic6+!? is a supposed improvement on this, when play has continued 14 . f8 ( 14 . . ct>d8 ! ? has always seemed better to me, although 1 5 lld l + ..t?c8 1 6 .ixa8 �xb3 1 7 .ie3 ltlf6 1 8 ltld5 .

=

=

..

may

.

be :f) 1 5 .txa8 lt:lxb3

b 1 ) 16 .ie3 ltlf6 17 ltld5 ! .id6 lt:lxf6 g f 1 9 .id5 ltlc5 20 ll a 1 Velimirovic-Toth, Nice 1 974. b2) 1 6 .if4 ltld4+ 17 ct>d3 �e6 .ie3 a5 1 9 ltld5 .id6 20 lla 1

18 ±

18 ±

It seems that White has no advantage at all here, in spite of the bishop-pair: a) 17 .if4 lt:le6 1 8 .ig3 llb8 1 9 .ic2 ltlc6 Ljubojevic-Parma, Yugoslav Ch 1 972. b) 17 0-0 llb8 18 lld l ltl e6 1 9 ltld5 ltlxd5 20 .ixd5 lld8 Levy­ Harandi, Skopje 1 972. After sixty years Capablanca's defensive plan stands as solid as ever. =

=

c 4

d3

This is analogous to the 5 d3 line against the Scotch Gambit, though a bit more respectable as Black does not have a bishop on c5 hanging around for White's pawns to harry . There is no gambiteering excitement in this line as Black's reticence means . . .

Goring Gambit: Section 6 that there is to be no early contact. The two sides just develop normally with White retaining slightly the better prospects because he has more space. I suppose a few precedents may be helpful. 5 i.xd3 d6 h3 6 Taking g4 away from Black's pieces . A good alternative is 6 ll:l d4 ltJf6 7 f4 i.e7 8 o-o 0-0 9 1!Vc2 g6 1 0 ll:ld2 ;!; Moe-Brinck Claussen, Danish Ch 1 969. ll:lf6 6 A rare instance of enterprising Black play in this variation was Velimirovic-Antoshin, Budapest 1973: 6 i.e7 7 ltJbd2 ll:lf6 8 ltJd4 ll:le5 9 i.c2 c 5 ! ? 10 ll:le2 i.d7 1 1 f4 ltJg6 1 2 0-0 i.c6 1 3 c4 - the 'hole' on d5 ought to give White some advan tage, but Black has compen­ sating piece activity. Another approach is to fianchetto with 6 ... g6, e.g. 7 i.g5 ltJf6 8 ll:lbd2 i.g7 9 ll:ld4 0-0 10 ltJxc6 be 1 1 f4 l:tb8 1 2 0-0 "t!¥e8 ! , Raaste-Westerinen, Hel­ sinki 1 979, when I would suggest 13 "t!¥c2 intending 1 3 . . . ll:ld7 1 4 b4 ;!;, 7 0-0 Equally good is 7 i.f4 as in Ljubojevic-Olafsson, Las Palmas 1 974: 7 . . . i.e7 8 ll:lbd2 ll:ld7 9 ltJc4 ll:ld7 10 i.c2 0-0 1 1 0-0 ll:lde5 1 2 ll:le3 i.e6 1 3 ll:ld2 b5 1 4 i.g3 ;!;. 7 i.e7 8 ltJ d 4 0-0 lieS 9 ltJd2 10 f4 (164) ...

The Gambit Declined 1 4 1

A position characteristic o f the whole line. White enjoys a spatial advantage. Black has no weaknesses, but his cramp is not the sort that . can be described as a coiled spring tre mbling with energy. A couple of game sources : a ) 10 i. f8 ( 1 0 . . . ltJ xd4 1 1 c d in­ creases White's central preponder­ ance) 1 1 ..c2 g6 1 2 ltl2f3 i.g7 1 3 i.d2 i.d7 1 4 li ae l ;!; Velimirovic­ Keres, Sukhumi 1 966. b) 10 ll:ld7 1 1 ll:l2f3 i.f6 1 2 i.e3 g6 1 3 "t!¥c2 i.g7 14 liae 1 ;!; Velimirovic-Ivkov, Skopje 1 976. ...

...

Conclusion: 4 . . . ltJf6 is the best way of declining the gambit if you like lively play. 4 . . . d5 is sufficient for equality if you adopt Capa­ blanca's line (B3) - a sound, but boringly unambitious procedure. 4 . . . d3 is colourless and ;!;, but has at least the merit of producing the sort of game in which the players' own ab�lities and j udge­ ment are mor � iitlyerf:anJ than book · knowledge.