budapest gambit - archive.org

Budapest Gambit

OTTO BORIK

Translated by Les Blackstock

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published in German as Budapester Gambit 1 985 © Edition Madler im Walter Rau Verlag, Dusseldorf 1985 First English edition 1 986 English translation © B.T. Batsford Ltd 1986

ISBN 0 7 1 34 5297 8 (1imp)

Photoset by Andek Printing, London and printed in Great Britain by Billing & Son Ltd, Worcester, for the publishers B. T.Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W I H OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK Adviser: R . D. Keene GM, OBE Technical Editor: P.A.Lamford

Contents

Foreword VI

Symbols VIII

Acknowledgments IX

1 d4 li::lf6 2 c4 eS 3 de li::lg4

1 The Knight System 4 li::lf3

2 The Bishop System 4 i.f4 21

3 The Alekhine System 4 e4 32

4 Rare Systems 55

1 d4 li::lf6 2 c4 eS 3 de li::le4 5 Fajarowicz Gambit Introduction 58

6 Fajarowicz 4 'fl moves on the d-file 62

7 Fajarowicz 4 11fc2 6H

8 Fajarowicz 4 li::lf3 and others 85

1 d4 li::lf6 2 c4 eS 9 Declining the Gambit 93

Foreword

What should one play with Black? Every chessplayer has asked himself this question. Should one follow the greats and base one's own repertoire on, say, the World Champion? Or should one adopt some aggressive variation to surprise the opponent?

The following considerations speak in favour of the second possibility: Professionals have a lot of time to study countless variations and

refine them deep into the middlegame. Furt hermore, chess masters are 'transparent' inasmuch as their games are regularly published. The result of this is that they play only established variations which have been examined in detail; the consumption of time for this is considerable.

For the 'normal' league and tournament player the problem is quite different. He has not the advantage of ample time available for study, but also not the disadvantage that his own games are too well known and can be closely examined by his opponent. So he can play more enterprisingly and employ the element of surprise. And so we arrive at the theme of this book.

Every year hundreds of master games are published which open, for example, with the Benoni . If you play the Benoni it can easily happen that your opponent has just discovered a novelty in a magazine and uses it against you . Suddenly, instead of your (possibly weaker) opponent, you must struggle against Grandmaster X, which seldom turns out well.

The Budapest Gambit and Fajarowicz Gambit - the subjects of this book - are little played nowadays internationally; well informed professionals are hard to surprise there. At other levels, roughly up to 2200, one can be successfu l in many games with this surprise weapon , particularly if one i s familiar with the most important ideas and combinations in this book. And if one meets a well-informed opponent (who knows this variation and perhaps has also read this book) then one

must put up with a slight but defendable disadvantage; one also has to do that in many other openings with Black.

With this in mind: much success, and above all m uch fun with the combinational, fascinating Budapest/ Fajarowicz Gambit!

Olio Borik

Symbols

+ Check + = = + Slight advantage ± � Clear advantage ±± H Winning advantage

Level position 00 Unclear position

Good move ! ! Outstandi ng move !? Interesting move ?! Dubious move ? Weak move ?? Blunder corres Correspondence 01 Olympiad IZ I nterzonal L League Ch Championship l;lf Semi-final

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Les Blackstock who updated the German original and checked the proofs, and Bob Wade who provided valuable new material.

1 The Knight System 4 ltJf3

1 d4 tt:Jr6 2 c4 eS 3 de lt:Jg4 4 lt:JrJ (I)

I B

Wit h t h is move White simultaneou sly protects the pawn on e5 and con t inues his development. This quiet con tinuation is most commonly played in the middle and lower echelons of chess , but also appears sometimes in international tourn aments.

Black now has two important cont i nuat ions at his disposal: A 4 ... lt:Jc6 B 4 . .. ..tcS

In practice two other moves

occasionally appear: a) 4 ... d6? is an illogical gambit. The mai n idea of the Budapest

Gambit consists above all in the act ive post ing of Blac k's KN on eS, at t he same t ime regai ning t he sacrificed pawn. The move ... d6 only furt hers Black's development slightly, as the bishop is more act ive on c5 or b4 than on d6. After 5 ed i. xd6 6 lt:Jc3 0-0 7 e3 lt:Jc6 8 i.e2 i.f5 9 0-0 B lack has no compensation for the sacri ficed

pawn, e.g. 9 ... �f6 10 h3 lt:Jgc5 II li:Jd4 ll:ad8? ( I I . .. i.g6? 12 f4 li:ld 7

13 f5; II ... i.d7 12 li:Jdb5 followed by 13 4Jxd6 ±. and finally II .. li:lxd4 12 cd lt'Jg(l 13 c5 i.e7 14 li:ld5) 12li:ld5 'tWg6 13 ..th S I-Uma simultaneous game. b) 4 ... i.b4+. This move has "no independent significance as it leads by transposition of moves to a position considered in the next few pages. In all practical examples ... li:lc6 and ... li:lg(c)xe5 are played later, rea<.:hin g a basi<.: posit ion of A I (4 ... 4'1<.:6).

2 The Knight System 4 li:Jf3

A 4 li:Jc6

Black delays a decision on the

development of his KB and immediately attacks the pawn on e5. Some theoretical works regard this move as dubious, but some recent analysis by Hungarian and Swedish masters has proved its viability.

White can defend his attacked pawn by 5 \!kd5 or 5 i.f4. These both lead to variations considered later:

For 5 \!kd5 see Chapter 4: Rare 4th move continuations by White.

After I d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:Jg4 4 \!kd5, we reach the present position with 4 ... li:Jc6 5 li:Jf3.

5 .if4 transposes to positions treated in Chapter 2.

We now examine: A I S e3 .ib4+ (and vanatwns

with a later ... .ib4) A2 S e3 li:JgxeS A3 S .igS

A I S e3 .ib4+

White now has three possibilities:

All 6 .id2 Al2 6 li:Jc3 Al3 6 li:Jbd2

All 6 .id2

An interesting game with this

continuation was played a few years ago in an international tour-

n ament in Israel.

G ame I G utman-Shvidler Beersheva 1982

(I d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:Jg4 4 it:lf3 li:Jc6 5 e3 .ib4+ 6 .id2)

6 .ixd2+ 7 \!kxd2 0-0 8 .ie2 li:JcxeS 9 li:JxeS li:JxeS

1 0 0-0 d6 I I li:Jc3 .ig4 1 2 f3 .ie6 1 3 b3 \!kh4 14 f4

Better was 14 li:Jd5 as after 14 ... .ixd5 15 cd White exerts strong pressure down the c-file against the pawn on c7. 14 . . . c6 followed by 15 ... l:lad8 is safer, though

White still has the more comfortable game.

14 li:Jg4 I S 1 6 1 7 18 19 20 2 1 22

.ixg4 li:JbS e4

li:Jc3 l:lael l:le3 \Wd4 life I

\!kxg4 1Hc8 .id7 .ic6 lieS '1Vd7 rs fe

23 li:Jxe4 lH8 24 li:Jg3 l:lae8 2s rs (2J

25 '1Vxa7? 1:1aM 26'1Vd4l:lxa2 and now 27 1Ie7 fails to 27 ... l:lxg2+ 28 'ii?f l '1Vg4.

25 lh:e3 26 �xe3 b6 27 �e6 �e8 28 �h5 1!rf7 29 't!rg4

The situation seems critical for Black, but only if viewed superficially. He can easily defend g7 and with his next move removes the threat of li'lf6+.

29 'it>f8 30 �f4 �d7 31 llxe8+ 'ttxe8 32 'it>fl?

White parries the threat of . . . 't!re I mate but loses a pawn. He had to play 32 li'le6+ �xe6 33 fe with a probable draw.

32 1!rf7 33 h4 1!t'xf5 34 't!rf3 c6 35 g4 't!rc5+ 36 'it>g2 'it>e7 37 �d3 't!rd4 38 �fl h5 39 't!re2+ 'it>d8 40 't!re4 1!rxe4+

A l 2

The Knighl Sys1em 4 li:Jf3 3

41 �xe4 dS 42 cd cd

0- 1

6 �c3 Here Black can commit a serious

error by not capturing the knight on c3 immediately. What can then happen is shown in the following game from the �golden age" of chess. The fact that the critical position is reached by transposition of moves is insignificant.

Game 2 Thomas-Reti

Baden-Baden 1925

( I d4 li'lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de �g4 4 �f3 �c6)

5 �c3 li:JgxeS 6 e3 .i.b4 7 �d2 0-0 8 a3! .i.xc3 9 �xc3 d6

1 0 �e2 �xf3+ I I �xf3 �eS 1 2 �e2 �e6 13 0-0 't!rd7

The pawn on c4 is taboo: 13 . .. �xc4? 14 �xc4 �xc4 1 5 't!rd4 �e5 16 f4! wins a piece.

14 c5! The insecure positio n of the

knight on e5 makes this advance possible, after which Black labours with a permanent weakness at d6.

14 llfd8


15 cd .-xd6 16 'fkxd6 cd 1 7 lUdl llac8 18 lld4 .ic4 19 lt>rl !

White centralises his king for the coming endgame. Here one could conclude from the theoretical point of view with the assertion that White stands better and realised his advantage in 73 moves. However, we will continue, as a very in teresting endgame with unusual points soon arises:

19 f6 20 llad l 21 .ib4 22 llb l

llc6 .ib3

Better than 22 llxd6? lldxd6 23 llxd6 lic l + followed by . .. llb l .

22 d5 23 lt>e I lldc8 24 i.c3 lLlc4

The tactical threat . . . lLlxa3 is easi ly parried by the pressure on the weakness at d5.

25 i.f3 tt:Jb6 Not 25 ... lLlxa3 26 ba llxc3 27

lhb3! llxb3 2M ..txd5+ and 29 i.xb3.

26 i.dl .ixdl If Black avoids this exchange

with 26 . . . i.c4, there follows 27 a4, 2H a5, 29 i.f3 and 30 b3. The pawn on d5 is then systematically rounded up.

27 llbxdl lt>f7 28 a4 llc4

29 aS tt:Ja4 30 llxc4 llxc4

30 ... de? 31 lld7+ followed by llxb7 naturally cannot be contemplated.

J B

31 llxd5 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

be lib5 �d2 �c2 f3 c4 g4 ab

�d3 (3)

lLlxc3 �e6 llc7 lld7+ lt>d6 �c6 b6 lle7 ab

In this ending Black put up further heroic resistance but could no longer save the game.

40 lia7 41 g5 fg 42 llxg5 g6 43 h4 lle7 44 h5 Ilc6 45 f4 'i!id7 46 lt>d4 Ilc6 47 f5 gf

48 lilg7+ �e6 49 lilxh7 lld6+ so �c3 �eS Sl h6 lle6 S2 llh8 �e4 S3 h7 lle7 S4 �b4 �xe3 ss �bS f4 S6 �c6!

With the neat idea that if 56 . . . f3 57 �d6 f2 (or rook any o n the 7th rank, 58 lle8+ followed by h8W; rook any on the e-file, 58 llf8 etc) 58 �xe7! f l W 59 lle8 and White will promote on h8.

S6 �1'2 S7 �b6 f3 S8 c;!;>c6 llf7 S9 cS �n 60 c;t;>b6 f2 61 c6 c;t;>e2 62 lle8+ ..ti'd3 63 h8W n w 64 lld8+ �c2 6S Wh2+ litf2 66 WeS litf4 67 WdS Wei

After 67 . . . litb4+ 68 c;t;>c7 Black has no more checks. If 67 . . . Wf2+ 68 Wc5+ with a winning rook ending.

68 Wd3+ �cl 69 WaH c;!;>c2 70 WcS+ c;t;>b2 71 litb8 (4)

A pleasing point: 7 1 . . . litb4+ 72 Wxb4+! .,xb4+ 73 f/;a7 and the c-pawn decides.

4 8

T-he Knight System 4 &iJj] 5

71 lla4 72 �c7+ �al 73 litb3! 1-0

Black is either mated or cannot avoid an exchange of queens on c3, after which White wins easily with his c-pawn.

This example in no way casts doubt on .i.f8-b4. It only serves as a warning.

We notice that Black may not give up the bishop pair if he allows White to recapture on c3 with his bishop.

Thus we return to the position after I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:lg4 4 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 5 e3 .i.b4+ 6 lt:lc3 and analyse the correct continuation for Black :

6 7 be

.txc3+! We7!

By this means Black prevents c4-c5 and also .i.c l -a3.

8 a4 lt:lgxeS 9 ..ia3 d6

1 0 cS White intends 10 . . . de II 1t'd5,

6 The Knight System 4 �/3

regaining the pawn favourably, as I I . . . b6?? fails to 12 �xe5. However, Black has a surprise ready:

1 0 �xf3+ 1 1 gf \!reS! 12 t!Yd2 de 13 i.bS i.d7 14 0-0 0-0-0

In the game Kamishov-Selyinsky, USSR 1 973, White did not have sufficient compensation for the pawn and Black won an interesting game in 58 moves.

A13 6 �bd2

After the bishop check on Black's 5th move, White can also play 6 �bd2 as the East German grandmaster Rainer Knaak shows in the following game:

Game 3 Knaak-Adamski

Sandomierz /976

( I d4 �f6 2 c4 e5 3 de llJg4 4 �f3 �c6 5 e3 .ib4+ 6 llJbd2)

6 �gxeS 7 �xeS llJxeS 8 i.e2

Here Black could have achieved a fully satisfactory game after 8 . . . d5 !? 9 cd 1!rxd5 10 1fa4+ �c6 I I i.f3 1Wd6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 Jild l 11fe7 and now it is very risky for White to take the pawn on offer: 14 .txc6 be 1 5 11fxc6 Jilb8 with a very dangerous attack after the build-

up . . . Jilb6, . . . i.b7, . . . Jilg6 and . . . i.d6 - Trajkovic.

In the game Black continued too hurriedly:

8 \!rh4? 9 0-0 0-0

10 llJb3 lle8 1 1 �d4 �c6 1 2 �rs 1!t'f6 1 3 llJg3 i.d6?! (5)

Better was the re-grouping 1 3 . . . i.f8 followed by . . . g6 and . . . i.g7. Such a set-up would firstly leave Black's kingside well secured, secondly would not leave the bishop on b4 cut off after an eventual d7-d6, and finally the pawn on g6 would take the squares h5 and f5 away from the knight on g3.

5 w

14 llJhS I S a3 16 .td2?!

\!re7 aS

But now it is White who does not continue accurately . 1 6 f4! was better. The text move once again gives Black the opportunity

to equalise: 1 6 . . . .i.e5! 1 7 1tc2 (or 1 7 � b l ) 1 7 . . . g6 H! ltJg3 a4! 19 .ic3 d6. The Polish master, however, allows himself to be tempted by apparently easy booty.

1 6 1!¥e5?! 1 7 f4 1!hb2 1 8 �bl 1!¥xa3 19 lib3 1!¥a4 20 .id3 .i.fB 2 1 .i.c3

I t 1s already too late for development by 2 1 . . . d6: 22 ltJf6+ ! gf 23 .ixh7+ <3;g7 (23 . . . <3Jxh7 24 1!¥h5+ <3;g8 25 .ixf6 etc; 24 . . . <3;g7 25 llD followed by �g3) 24 .i.c2 followed by @h5 and/or l1D-g3 with an irresistible attack.

In view of the threat ltJf6+ Black must resort to ' indirect' moves.

21 1le6 22 rs lle5 23 � f4 d6 24 llg4 <3Jh8 25 c5 ltJb4 26 .i.xe5 de 21 ltJxg7!

With the threat 27 . . . .ixg7 2H .ib5! followed by 1!¥d8 and mate.

27 1!¥c6 28 ltJh5 .ixcS 29 .ie4 1!¥d6 30 1!¥el .id7 31 h3 1!fh6 32 1lh4 .ic6 33 .ixc6 ltJxc6

Or 33 . . . 1txc6 34 f6 threatening

The Knight System 4 &oj3 7

1tb I with an attack against the tender spot h7. Both players were in time-trouble here, which affects the logical flow of the game, but White's initiative cannot be shaken.

34 lixb7 .i.d6 35 libl .ic5 36 <3Jhl 't!t'xe3

36 .ixe3 loses the bishop after 37 ltJf4 'ft'f6 38 ltJd5 or 37 . . . 1!¥g5 3H �g4.

37 lL!f6 38 39 40 41

llxel ltJh5+ ltJg3+ llcl

1!t'xel+ <3;g7 <3Jh6 <3;g7 a4

42 llxc5 a3 43 lhc6!

Better than 43 llc I a2 44 �a I ltJd4 followed by . . . ltJb3.

43 a2 44 1lg4+ <3;tll 45 llcl a I '8'

46 llxal 47 <3Jh2

Summary

llxa l + 1-0

The plan 4 . . . ltJc6 i.lnd 5 . . . .ib4+ is not refuted in spite of the 2- 1 score for White in the sample games just given .

After 6 ltJc3 Black must play . . . .ixc3+ immediately; after 6 ltJbd2 an early . . . d5 promises equality . The most difficult position for Blilck a rises after 6 .i.d 2 .

Black's task is significant ly easier after the logical move 5 . . .

8 The Knight System 4 fU[3

fUgxe5, with which the next section is concerned.

A2

6 B

5 e3 (6)

The bishop check on b4 and the variations connected with it were dealt with in A I . I n this section we will examine a closely related continuation, namely the capture on e5. As already mentioned, the active posting of a black knight on e5 represents the basic idea of the Budapest Gambit.

For Black the question now arises: with which k night will he capture on e5?

A game of the Yugoslav Predrag Nikolic gives the answer in the form of the negative choice . It was played in the Junior World Ch in Mexico in 1979, where Nikolic, now a grandmaster, finished third behind Seirawan and Chernin. Already at that t ime Nikolic was a feared ' k i ller' in I d4 openings as he exploited every inaccuracy remorselessly.

Game 4 P. N ikolil:-Barbero

Junior World Ch. Mexico 1979

( I d4 fUf6 2 c4 e5 3 de fUg4 4 {Uf3 fUc6 5 e3)

5 i.c5 Patience please, capturing on e5

follows immediately. 6 fUcJ fUcxe5?

Only 6 . . . fUgxe5 is correct, as Nikolic shows at o nce.

7 h3! Forces the exchange on f3 , after

which the White queen enters the game advantageously. The same applies when the moves fUc3 and . . . .i.c5 have been omitted.

A tip: either do not exchange on f3 at all, or only whe n White has played .i.e2 and therefore can no longer recapture with t he queen .

7 fUxf3+ 8 't!hf3 lUeS 9 .. g3

Here is an ideal post for the queen as it threatens the point g7 and therefore prevents the development of Black's kingside. As 8 . . . 't!rf6 i s met by 9 liJd5 with the unpleasant threats liJxc7 or 1!1xg7, Black must move his k night again. Thus seven of his first nine moves have been knight moves, which cannot be good!

9 1 0 i.d2

liJg6 i.d6

After 10 . . . 0-0 Black was afraid

of I I h4. I I f4 i&.e1 1 2 0-0-0 i&.f6 13 'itf3 d6 1 4 li:ldS 0-0 I S i&.d3 i&.d7 16 h4 lieS 1 7 hS li:lf8 1 8 g4 i&.c6 1 9 gS i&.e1 20 i&.c3 i&.xdS 2 1 't!hdS c6 22 'itd4 li:le6 (7)

After the unfortunate opening Black was not at a disadvantage but then completely lost the thread. The following combination is a result of Black's series of inaccuracies.

23 i&.xh7+! �xh7 24 'ite4+ �g8 2S h6

Nothing can repulse the threat 26 hg followed by 'ith7+ and mate: 25 . . . g6 26 h7+ and h!l'i!t' mate; the text also doesn't help.

2S li:lxgS

The Knight System 4 lLlfJ 9

26 hg! 1-0 Whoever plays over this game

will never recapture on e5 with the c6 knigh t , will he?

After these experiences, th� correct order of moves slowly crystallises: ( I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:lg4 4 li:lf3 li:lc6)

S e3 li:lgxeS (8)

Now 6 b3, 6 li:lc3 or 6 i&.e2 all lead by transposition to the main variation.

Only 6 'i!t'd5 has independent significance. The game BergstromHagen, corres 1962-63, cont inued 6 . . . db 7 li:lxe5 ( White does nut want to lose a tempo after . . . i&.e6) 7 . . . de! !l 'i!t'xd!l+ li:lxd8 9 li:lc3 c6 10 i&.e2 i&.f5 I I 0-0 li:le6 12 b3 ( 1 2 e4 1eaves a n ugly hole o n d4 where the black knight could settle) 1 2 . . . i&.b4 1 3 i&.b2 0-0-0 and Black ha� a somewhat more pleasant endgame ( 14 a3 li:d2!; 14 li:fd I i&.c2).

6 i&.e2

10 The Knight System 4 fiJ/3

6 . . . ..ic5 transposes to the main variation of B.

6 g6 Black obtains a satisfactory

game with this plan of . . . ..ig7, . . . 0- 0 and . . . d6, a s a game between two Dutch grandmasters makes clear.

GameS Sosonko-Ree

Amsterdam 1982

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLlg4 4 ttJD lLlc6 5 e3 lLlgxe5 6 .ie2 g6)

7 lLle3 lLlxf3+ 8 ..ixf3 ..ig7 9 1!rd2 d6

1 0 b3 lLleS A refined move. After the

retreat I I ..ie2 Black gets an active game with I I . . . 1!rg5 ! 1 2 .ifl ( 1 2 g3 ..ih3; 1 2 0-0?? .ih3) 1 2 . . . .ih3 ! (9)

The bishop is taboo because of . . . lLlf3+; 1 3 lilg l also fails to . . . ttJD+ and 1 3 . . . .ixg2 is threatened.

We now examine: a) 13 f4 1rh4+ 14 �d l ( 1 4 1!rf2? lLld3+ 1 5 .ixd3 ..ixc3+ etc; 1 4 g3 fiJD+ 1 5 �d l lLl xd2 16 gh ..ixc3) 14 . . . .ig4+ 1 5 �c2 .!Dc6 and after . . . 0-0-0 followed by . . . llhe8 Black is very active. b) 13 lLle4 1re7 14 .ib2 ( 1 4 f4? lLlxc4!) 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 0-0-0 .id7 followed by . . . .ic6 or even . . . a5-a4 and Black has no complaints.

On account of this interesting tactical possibility, White played

I I .ib2! and after

I I 1 2 gf 1 3 0-0-0

lLlxf3+ 0-0

.ih3 the chances were balanced.

14 lilhgl .ie6 I S .!De4 rs 16 .!DgS .bb2+ 1 7 1!rxb2 1!rf6 18 f4 1!rxb2+ 19 �xb2 .if7 20 eS! de 2 1 lild7 lilad8!

The ending after 22 lilxc7 lild2+ 23 �a3 b5! is good for Black.

22 llgd1 llxd7 23 lilxd7 h6 24 lLl f3 :IileS 2S .!DeS .ie8 26 lile7 �f8 27 lilh7 �8 28 lle7 � 29 llb7 �8 (10)

'lrllz

/0 w

Neither side can improve their chances. A fighting draw, which unfortunately is not always the case these days between grandmasters.

Summary

Black does his best on his 5th move to recapture on e5 with his king's k night. After that he gets a satisfactory game with the set-up . . . g6 and . . . i.g7.

A3 5 i.g5 i.e7 (II)

The Knight System 4 li:JfJ I I

in A I (after 5 . . . i.b4+), the way to equality in A2 ( . . . li:Jgxe5/ .. . g6) is simple. A last possibility for White is the renunciation of the quiet 5 e3 in favour of the sharper continuation 5 i.g5.

Apart from the exchange on e7, 6 i.f4 is possible, which, after 6 . . . i.b4+, leads to a position which is exami ned in detail in Chapter 2.

Other moves scarcely come into consideration: a) 6 h4 h6 7 i.xe7 't!rxe7. The interpolation of the moves h7-h6 and h2-h4 is favourable for Black. Both sides have created an 'airhole' , but Black can , in addition, use the square g4 for later operations. b) 6 i.d2 0-0 7 i.c3 i.c5 8 e3 't!re7 9 't!rd5 l:le8 followed by . . . li:Jgxe5 and . . . d6 with a comfortable game for Black .

6 i.xe7 1!he7 7 lt:lc3

A venomous move. The Swedish masters Schussler and Wedhcrg

11 now give: 7 . . . lt:lcxe5? M lt:ld5 'ticS 9 e3 liJxiJ+ I 0 gf lLl eS I I f4 lt:lg6 12 b4! 't!rc6 13 't!rd4 with a winning position for White.

However, with the following prec1se move Black equalises immediately.

7 'ticS! 8 e3 lt:lgxe5 ( 12)

Schussler and Wedberg now If White still had some problems analyse:

12 The Knight System: 4 (jjfJ

a) 9 (jjdS 0-0 1 0 'ffd2 (not 10 (jjxc7? 'ffa5+ winning a piece) 10 . . . (jj xf3+ I I gf (jje7 1 2 't!ld4 ( If 1 2 b4 'ffd6 and White must still exchange on e7, but after that Black can advance actively with . . . a5) 1 2 . . . 'ffxd4! 1 3 (jjxe7+ �hS 14 ed lle8 and Black regains the piece with a better ending on account of the weak white pawn structure. b) 9 'trdS 1t'e7 10 1rd2 d6 I I lL!d5 'ird8 12 0-0-0 0-0 fol lowed by . . . .ie6 wi th equal ity.

Those who don't l ike this quiet position can fall back on a suggestion of the H ungarian Kaposztas who, instead of 8 . . . (jjgxe5, makes a case for 8 ... 0-0 and gives the following variation : 9 'ffd5 'irb4! 1 0 1t'b5 liteS I I (jjd4 'ire7, again with equality, but with a full-blooded game for both sides. Worthy of examination are the complications after 1 2 (jjd5 'ffxe5 1 3 (jjf3 'ird6 14 litd I (threatening c4-c5) 14 . . . a6 1 5 1!ra4

(jjce5. I n any event 1 6 b4 is dangerous for White whose k ing cannot feel secure in the centre after 1 6 . . . b5 ! 1 7 cb .ib7. Further practical tests must be awaited here.

This ends the examination of the first section of the k night's variation . In B we will turn our attention to the sharper variation 4 . . . .ic5.

8

We now examine: 81 6 1!rd5 82 6 a3 B3 6 .ie2

Other possibil ities: a) 6 .id2 0-0 7 .ic3 '@'e7 S a3 a5 or S 1!rd5 liteS with equality after the usual set-up . . . (jjgxe5, . . . d6 and . . . .ie6. b) 6 b3 d6! (exceptionally good here as 7 ed?? loses to 7 . . . 'i!t'f6) followed by . . . (jjgxc5, transposing to variations with .ie2 (B3) .

B l 6 1fdS 1fe7 1 a3

This interpolation excludes the possibility of a check at b4 later. 7 lt:lc3 lt:lgxe5 8 .te2 d6 9 lt:le4 .ie6 10 'trd I .ib4+ I I .td2 0-0-0 1 2 .ixb4 lt:lxb4 1 3 1fb3 li:Jxf3+ 1 4 .txf3 d5, Adler-Maroczy, Budapest 1 896, was better for Black .

1 aS 8 lt:lc3 (14)

Or 8 .id2 0-0 9 .ic3 lieS 10 .te2 lt:lgxe5 I I 0-0 d6 and after 12 . . . .te6 Black stands well.

14 8

The crit ical position . Now: a) 8 . . . lt:lgxeS 9 lt:le4 d6 I 0 lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5 I I lt:lxc5 de. So far this is I M Minev analysing the game PopovTomov, Bulgaria 1 959, in ECO. Minev believes Black has good counterplay, but unfortunately does not present any examples . There could follow 12 .ie2 0-0 1 3 0-0 lldX 14 W'e4 1!rf6. S o far, certainly, a natural course of events. After 15 f4 lt:lc6 (threatening

The Knight System 4 liJ.fJ 13

. . . .tf5) 16 g4 ' Black's good counterplay' is nowhere to be seen. b) The following variation seems to give Black good chances: 8 ... �! (the pawn on e5 will not run away; first development is completed) 9 lt:le4 b6 10 ll:lxc5 be I I .te2 ( I I b3 llb8 12 llb I .ib7 threatening .. . lt:ld4) I I ... .tb7 1 2 0-0 llfb8 (again . . . lt:ld4 is threatened) 1 3 'trd I ll:lcxe5. Black readily exchanges minor pieces and has pressure against the pawn on c4 and along the b-file .

We have seen that the sortie 1fd l -d5 often proves to be a loss of tempo with accurate play by Black.

B2 6 a3 aS 1 b3

This early development of White's QB is made possible by the interpolation of the moves a3 and . . . a5; otherwise . . . d6! would be played (see earlier note) . Here 7 . . . d6? would make no sense: Xed 1!t'f6 9 Ii:a2.

7 0-0 8 .tb2 Ii:e8 9 liJc3

It is c lear from comparable examples already analysed that Black gets a good game after 9 1!t'd5 "ii!ic7 followed by . . . liJgxl'5. .. . d6 and . . . .tc6.

14 The Knight System 4 fiJ/3

9 fiJgxe5 10 fiJxe5

10 .ie2 just t ransposes after 10 . . . fiJxf3+ I I .ixf3 fiJe5 1 2 .ie2.

10 fiJxe5 I I .ie2 d6 (I 5)

A natural and good move. The sensational defeat of the Swedish I M Akesson after I I ... lita6?! will be found in game 6.

Now 1 2 fiJa4 is not good because of 1 2 . . . 't!rg5! - remember game 5, Sosonko-Ree. Here it could be worse: 1 3 0-0? .ih3 winning the exchange; 1 3 g3 .ih3 with advantage to Black; and above all 13 .if!? .ixe3 ! ! 14 fe 1!rxe3+ and wins: a) 15 1!re2 fiJd3+ 16 �d 1 .ig4 1 7 1!rxg4 �f2+; b) 15 ..ie2 fiJd3+ with mate or win of the queen.

12 0-0 This is the main variation of this

section. IM Minev continues in ECO with 12 . .. ..if5 and demonstrates a slight advantage for

White. The American Josef Staker, the author of The Budapest Defence (Chess Digest, 1 982) suggests the following improve-ment :

12 1ie6!? ( 16)

White has some superiority in the centre and on the queenside but lacks defenders of his king. Thus the black rook heads for h6 to start a k ingside attack in conj unction with . . . 1!t'h4.

We examine: B21 13 fiJd5 B22 13 g3

B23 13 fiJa4

821

13 fiJd5 1ih6 The following example serves as

a demonstration of the danger of Black's initiative: 1 4 b4? 't!rh4 (Josef Straker gives 14 ... ab 1 5 ab litxal 1 6 Wxa l ... h4 1 7 h3 ..ixh3 and wins; an oversight in this otherwise excellent work as White mates with 1 8 Wa8) 1 5 h3 .ixh3 1 6

g3 lii:g6 1 7 tt:lf4 i.xe3 ! 1 8 'it>h l ( 1 8 tt:lxg6 't!rxg3+; 1 8 fe 't!rxg3+ followed by . . . i.g2+ and mate) 1 8 . . . i.xf4! and Black mates i n all variations, the prettiest being 1 9 gh .ig2+ 20 'it>g I tt:lf3_± 2 1 i.xf3 i.xf3 mate. Ttilscr·u:s-hing victory can naturally be traced back to the error 14 b4?; such a mistake could easi ly appear in tournaments not of the highest level .

14 g3 i.h3 15 net c6!?

On 1 5 . . . 'itd7 there can follow: a) 16 i.O? .ig4 17 .ie2 i.xe2 1 8 1Wxe2 't!t'h3 with advantage to Black ( 1 9 f4 tt:ld3 ! ! 20 't!rxd3 't!rxh2+ followed by . . . 1hb2; 20 lii:f l tt:lxb2 2 1 1i'xb2 c6). b) 16 tt:lf4 g5 ! is also good for Black. c) 16 i.xe5 de 17 i.fl (as 17 . . . i.xfl?? naturally loses the queen to 1 8 l0f6+) was played in GouldHardy, Leicester 1968, and now Staker gives 1 7 . . . lii:e8 with equality. 1 7 . . . c6 followed by . . . lid6 and . . . lii:d8 seems t o give good chances. d) 16 b4! i.a7 ( 1 6 . . . i.g2? is only a shot in the air - 1 7 l[)f4 ! ) 1 7 l[)f4 lie8 1 8 i.d4 is good for White however.

16 tt:lf4 i.f5

16 . .. 't!rd7 1 7 b4! and if 1 7 . . . ab 1 8 ab lii:xa l 1 9 't!rxa l i.xb4 20 tt:lxh3 threatening 't!t'a8 and mate. Perhaps 16 .. . 't!t'c8 is playable.

The Knight System: 4 tt:lf3 15

After 16 . . . i.f5 the chances are level. White must keep an eye on such Black possibilities as . . . 't!t'c8, . . . g5 and . . . i.e4.

B22 13 g3 llh6

14 4Je4

14 tt:ld5 transposes to B2 1 . 14 'i¥d7

Otherwise Black loses a piece after tt:lxc5 and i.xe5. However, he now threatens . . . 'i¥h3 . As Black wins after 1 5 i.xe5 1!¥h3 16 g4 de 17 't!rdH i.f8 or 15 tt:lxc5 't!t'h3 , there remains . . .

15 h4 i.a7

Bad is 1 5 . . . i.b6? 16 c5! or 1 5 . . . 'f¥h3? 1 6 i.xe5. Black now appears to hold the balance: 16 c5 1!¥c6 1 7 i.xe5 1!¥xe4 or 1 7 cd 1!¥xc4 I X i.xe5 1!¥xe5 19 d7 i.xd7 20 't!rxd7 i.xe3 ! .

B23

13 tt:la4 b6!?

We will meet this mot if in B3 -Black maintains the balance.

Attempts to win the apparently incarcerated bishop by b3-b4 meet with energetic resistance: 14 i.c3 i.d7 and now: a) 15 b4? i.xa4! 1 6 t!fxa4 ab b) 15 li)b2 llh6 16 g3 i.c6 1 7 b4 '@eX ! with the ucadly threat . .. 't!rh3 .

14 lL\xc5 15 f4

be tt:ld7

16 The Knight System 4 &i:Jf3

16 i.f3 litbS 17 1fd3

Still worse would be 1 7 e4 a4. 1 7 a4!

Black stands better. The fact that the moves a2-a3 and a7-aS have been inserted here works clearly in favour of Black who exerts strong pressure on the b-file. After 1 8 i.d I 1fe7 19 lite 1 i.b7 Black has the advantage.

B3 6 .i.e2 7 0-0 S &i:JxeS

&i:JgxeS 0-0

Or 8 b3 li::lxf3+ 9 .i.xf3 li::leS 1 0 .i.e2 transposing.

17 B

8 9 b3

1 0 li::lc3 ( 17)

li::lxeS liteS

The main variation is 1 0 . . . d6. The alternative I 0 ... aS will be discussed in the following game, about which a few words.

In August 1984 a very strong i nternational open tournament took place m Berlin. Among the

many title-holders taking part was the former European Junior Ch, Swedish IM Ralf Akesson. Akesson had finished second behind H ort in 1 983 and was therefore regarded as one of the probable prizewinners. However, he lost his chance because of an absolutely unexpected Joss to the little-known French lady player Nicole Tagnon - in the Budapest Gambit.

G ame 6 Akesson-Tagnon

Berlin Open 1984

( 1 d4 &i:Jf6 2 c4 eS 3 de l0g4 4 l0f3 .i.cS S e3 li::lc6)

6 .i.e2 7 0-0 S l0c3 9 b3

1 0 .i.b2 1 1 .i.xf3

0-0 liteS li::lgxeS aS

&i:Jxf3+ li::leS

By one of the many move-orders we have reached the starting position of this section with the plan .. . aS.

12 i.e2 lita6 (/�

Black plans to swing the rook to the kings ide to instigate an attack there. The threat of . . . llh6 followed by . . . \Wh4 requires energetic measu res and at firs t the Swede shows himself to be fully on top of the si tuation.

13 't!fd5! \We7 14 ll:Je4 i.a7 15 c5 Ilg6 1 6 Ilacl i.b8 1 7 f4 ll:Jg4 18 i.xg4 Ilxg4

With 19 ll:Jf2! White could simply exploit the exposed position of the rook ( 1 9 . . . \Wxe3?? 20 i.d4 'ihf4 2 1 ll:Jxg4 Wxg4 22 'itxn +) and build up his positional advantage ( 1 9 . . . llg6 20 f5). The following pawn sacrifice should only lead to a draw.

19 ll:Jg5? 20 'it>hl

t!Vxe3+ Ihf4

2 1 ll:Jxf7 c6 22 ll:Jh6+ 'it>h8

. . . and draw by perpetual check one would th ink . But Akesson is not content with this . . .

23 it'h5? . . . and underestimates his

opponent's clever reply . . . 23 l:lef8!

And now its over! 24 llfe l fails to 24 . . . 't!fxel + and 25 . . . lUI+ followed by mate or 24 l:lgl to the game continuation .

24 llxf4 t!Vxf4 25 l:lgl d5

The Knight System 4 lLlf3 17

26 cd i.xd6 The knight on h6 remains trap

ped and White runs out of moves. 27 i.cl

Or 27 i.al (27 i.c3) . . . b6 fol lowed by . . . i.c5 with a

renewed threat on White's back rank (29 :Ucl t!VIl +).

27 \We5 0-1

Commentary based on notes by Claus-Dieter Meyer i n Schach 64 no 1 9 / 1 984.

This game caused a great s t i r but White's loss says nothing about the correctness of the plan with . . . a5. Rather it looks very much as if . . . a5 is not completely satisfactory. [The variation was resuscitated in the game 011-Romero, Groningen 1 984-85, which went 10 . . . a5 II i.b2 l:la6 12 ll:Je4 i.a7 1 3 \Wd5 llae6 ! ! 14 't!txa5 i.b6 1 5 't!tc3 t!Vh4 1 6 f4 l:lh6 1 7 h3 d5! 1 8 cd i.xh3 and Black won in 30 moves - tr.] However it i� important to be familiar with th1s idea, for i n practical games i t often happens that White makes some sort of harmless move and then this plan can certainly be employed . It is conceivable, and has actually happened in practice, for example. that White plays lLlbd2 instead of lLlc3; then . . . a5 followed by . . . l:la6-h6 is very strong.

However, given that White play� the correct lLld, we ret urn to

18 The Knight System 4 liJf3

the main variation. 10 d6 (1 9)

I n practice two plans have been tried: B31 I I i.b2, quietly continuing

his development B32 I I liJa4, ridding himself of the

bishop on c5.

B31 II i.b2 lii:e6

Strongly reminiscent of B2. I t is in fact the same position without the moves a3 and . . . a5. 1 2 liJa4 leads to B32, and otherwise the game runs as in B2. The only difference lies in

12 g3 Now 1 2 .. . llh6 would be bad

because of 13 liJe4 as the bishop on c5 cannot, by analogy with B2, retreat to a7.

What should Black play? Perhaps the retreat 1 2 . . . liteS followed by 1 3 . . . i.h3; perhaps 1 2 . . . b6 followed by 1 3 . . . i.b7. One must return to these variations if the

following suggestion proves a failure.

20 w

1 2 't!t'd7!? (20)

We already k now the tricks after 1 3 liJe4 l:Ih6 from B2. We will look at another 'trap' -a pit into which White falls himself: 1 3 f4 i.xe3+ 1 4 'it>h l (with the intention 14 . . . 't!t'c6+ 1 5 liJd5liJd7 16 i.f3 or 1 4 . . . liJc6 15 i.g4) 1 4 . . . lii:h6! and wins after . . . lii:xh2+ and/or . . . 't!t'h3+.

The move 12 . . . 1!t'd7 seems at first rather odd, but on closer examination is quite logical as . . . l:lh6 and . . . 't!t'h3 i s the ideal buildup to which to aspire. Due to lack of practical material, here is a 'constructed' conceivable variation.

1 3 i.f3 liJxf3+ 14 't!t'xf3 l:Ih6 1 5 't!t'g2 't¥g4

Black obtains an active game with . . . 'tlfh5 and . . . i.h3 (on lii: fe l then naturally . . . i.g4).

In all practical games White has decided to play liJa4 to

liquidate the bishop pair and spoil Black's pawn structure.

B32 1 1 lLla4 (2 I)

After I I . . . .ib6 1 2 lLlxb6 ab 1 3 't!fd2 White's position is i n fact somewhat more pleasant. He has many possibilities such as the plan .ic3 and 't!t'b2 or lilae I, e4 and f4. [A recent example of this line saw Black achieve equality after I I . . . i.b6 1 2 lLlxb6 ab 1 3 i.b2 't!t'h4 1 4 'tlrd4 't!t'xd4 1 5 i.xd4 i.g4 1 6 i.xg4 ( 1 6 f3 lLlc6! ) 1 6 . . . lLlxg4, Karolyi-Rogers, Tallinn 1985 -tr.J

Black's stock rose again when the following game was published in which he introduced a highly original strategic idea.

Game 7 Osnos-Yermolinsky

Leningrad 1977

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e 5 3 de lLlg4 4 lLl f3 .ic5 5 e3 lLlc6 6 i.e2 lLlgxe5 7 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 8 0-0 0-0 9 lL!c3 d6)

The Knight System 4 lbfJ 19

10 b3 I I .ib2 12 lLla4 1 3 lLlxcS 14 f4 IS i.fJ

lieS aS b6!? be lLld7 libS

The play on the half-open lines compensates Black for the bishop pair. The doubled pawns are no weak ness at all here.

16 't!fd2 a4 1 7 ba?

Better was 1 7 't!fc3 f6 1 8 .ic6 ab 19 ab .ib7 with an unclear position. Black has the advantage after the column move.

1 7 lLlb6 IS liae I .ia6 19 .ie2 lie4 20 lifJ lLlxc4 21 .ixc4 .ixc4 22 lig3 f6 23 h3 .if7 24 aS c4 2S 1ic2 dS 26 't!fcJ cS 2 7 't!fxf6 't!fxf6 2S .ixf6 g6 29 lidl liaS 30 .ic3 lidS

There is nothing to be done about the brea kthrough . . . d4. White continues to fish in troubled waters.

31 32 33 34

a6 h4 hS hg

liaS lixa6 l:l.a3 hg


35 .ieS d4 The black king escapes the rook 36 1Ih3 llxe5 checks on h6. After 42 lld7 c3 37 re d3 followed by . . . c2 the passed 38 e4 nxa2 pawns prevail. 39 llf3 1le2 This ends the examination of 40 lldfl d2 the Knight Syste m, the most 41 1lxf7 llel popular variation of the Budapest

0-1 Gambit .

2 The Bishop System 4 i£4

1 d4 �f6 2 c4 eS 3 de �g4 4 .if4 (22)

22 B

I n the first chapter we saw White's queen's bishop generally developed on the a l -h8 diagonal after b3 and .ib2. In this chapter we are concerned with a system in which White immediately develops this bishop on a different square .

Black does best in the Bishop System to follow the main plan of the Budapest Gambit which consists of four stages: I. The king's bishop goes to c5 or b4.

It makes room for �:astling and allows the later development . . . t!t'e7.

2. The queen's knight moves to c6. The pawn on e5 is eventually regained after . . . 0-0, . . . "tre7 and . . . lle8.

3. 3 ... 'tlre7 is played and/or castles. The major pieces belong on the e-file.

4. With .. . d6 and a move of the bishop on c8 development i'ii ended. About stage 1: I n the k night's

variation the bishop belonged on c5 or g7; . . . .ib4 was merely playable. In the bishop's variation the bishop always belongs on b4!

Please believe this above all; the evidence follows at once. Thus Black's further progress is clear: bishop to b4, k night to c6, queen to e7, castle and . . . play.

The material divides as follows: A 4 . . . g5? Here an incorrect variation is 'shot down' . B 4 . . . li:Jc6 5 lt:Jf3 .ib4+ 6 lLJbd2. White takes care of his pawn structure and does not permit doubled pawns on the �:-file. C 4 ... l'ilc6 5 lilB -'tb4 t 6 li 1c .l Doubled pawns against the bishop pair - which prevails?

22 The Bishop System 4 j.j4

A 4 g5? (23)

This move is repeatedly played, although it not only contradicts general strategic principles, but also the strategy of the Budapest Gambit, which, simply expressed, runs: sound development with centralisation of a knight on e5.

The move 4 . . . g5 creates irreparable weaknesses in Black's camp and would only be j ustified by tactical circumstances which do not exist here as White has no weaknesses.

There are a number of good continuations for White. This book is not only intended for adherents of the Budapest Gambit, but also for 1 d4 players. For the first gr_oup an example will serve as a warning, for the second group a reliable method of combat.

5 .id2! [Also promising is 5 .ig3 .ig7 6

ll:Jf3 ll:\c6 7 ll:\c3 ll:Jgxe5 8 ll:\xe5 ll:\xe5 9 e3 d6 10 h4! h6 1 1 c5, Schussler-Herrera, H avana 1 985 -

tr. ]

The main threat is f4 winning a piece. I n all k nown games Black now played 7 .. . g4, the only exception being Lorenz-Greger, West Germany 1 975: 7 . . . 0-0 8 h4 g4 9 ll:\e2 d6 1 0 ll:\g3 ll:\bc6 I I 'ilc2 f5 (directed against ll:Jf5) 1 2 ll:\h5 .ih8 1 3 li:ld2 .ie6 14 f4 li:lg6 ( 1 4 . . . gf 1 5 gf foil owed by .i.e2, 0-0-0 and lildg 1 looks very risky for Black) 1 5 .i.xh!l lL!xh!l ( 1 5 . . . 'it>xh8?? 1 61itc3+ etc) 1 6 Wc3 We7 1 7 0-0-0 ll:\g6 1 8 .id3 llae8 ( 1 8 . . . lL!xh4?? 19 llxh4) 1 9 e 4 llf7 20 llde 1 ll:\xh4 (20 . . . 'ftf8 2 1 ef .ixf5 22 lilxe8+ 1!txe8 23 .ixf5 l:lxf5 24 ll:Jf6+) 2 1 g3 fe ( 2 1 . . . ll:\g6 22 ef as before) 22 lL!xe4 lL!f3 23 ll:Jef6+ 'it>f8 24 lL!d5 1 -0.

7 g4

8 ltJe2 9 ltJf4

d6 h5

Preventing ltJh5, which can be very disruptive as we have just seen.

10 1Wc2 (25)

10 1Wg5 In his book The Budapest

Defence Josef Staker suggests this improvement.

Henneberke-Bakonyi, Holland v. H ungary 1 949, continued 10 . . . ltJa6 1 1 lL!d2 ltJc5 12 ltJe4 b6 1 3 ltJxc5 be 1 4 ..td3! with advantage to White. B lack cannot castle because of the weakness on h5. White plays ..te4, 0-0-0 and h3.

26 w

1 1 ttJd2 ..tr5 r lfl J

The Bishop System 4 J/J4 23

The author now continues with 12 e4('!) ..te6 and assesses the position quite correctly as open. However, White can play better.

1 2 t!fb3 b6 l 3 c5! 0-0

This is the only reasonable move. 1 3 . . . be?? 14 'tWb7 loses for Black, as does 1 3 . . . de? 1 4 ..txe5 ..txe5 15 'tid5.

1 4 cd cd 1 5 h4

The win of a pawn after 1 5 1Wd5 ltJ bc6 1 6 1Wxd6 llad8 would be very questionable.

1 5 't!fh6 1 5 . . . gh 16 ltJ xh3 cannot

good. 16 g3 ltJbc6 1 7 ..tg2 llac8 1 8 0-0

be

White stands clearly better. H is king position is rock solid and all his pieces stand well. There are two permanent weaknesses in Black's camp to exploit (h5 and d6); the latter will soon become a target for the white rooks on the d-file. The knight on d2 will move to e4. The rest of the game will be very pleasant.

B 4 5 ltjf3 6 ltJbd2

ltJc6 ..tb4+ 1re7 (27)

Here White has two main alternatives:

24 The Bishop System 4 i./4

27 w

81 7 e3 82 7 a3

8 1 7 e3

SchUssler and Wedberg give a convincing equalising line against

Or 1 1 li:lf3 a5 followed by . . . i.c5 with equality.

I I b6 1 2 a3 i.c5

With an equal game after 1 3 li:ld4 a5 or 1 3 li:lxc5 be followed by . . . a5, . . . f6, . . . i.e6 and play on the b-file. We recall that we have seen this motif several times, e.g. in Game 7. �! t:. 5�t 4--

lf White plays�mmediately, Black m ust reply 14 . . . li:ld7 ! followed by . . . a5 with a good game.

82 7 a3 (28)

this. 28 7 li:lgxe5 B

8 li:lxe5 Or M a3 liJxfH 9 gf i.xd2+ 1 0

'ifxd2 d 6 I I llg l , van ScheltingaAdema, Holland )938. Black can obtain a fully satisfactory game with I I . . . li:le5 12 i.e2 f6 fol lowed by i.d7-c6.

8 li:lxe5 9 ..te2

9 a3 transposes to 82. 9 0-0

I 0 0-0 d6 ( ? I I (Less accurate is 10 . . . i.xd2 1 1

't!Vxd2 d6 12 IIfd I b6 1 3 b4 i.b7 1 4 c5 de 15 be li:lg6 16 'ttd7 'itxd7 1 7 IIxd7 ± Garcia Palermo-Rogers, Reggio Emi lia 1 984-85 - tr.]

I I li:lb3

7 li:lgxe5! The famous "K ieninger trap".

The late German master Georg Kieninger once used it in an offband game against Godai at Vienna 1 925. There followed 8 ab?? li:ld3 mate. This example was henceforth quoted in many chess books, though also under other names, for later many more

players were to fall into the "Kieninger t rap".

8 lLlxeS lLlxeS A not her invitation to self-mate

after 9 ab?? lLld3. 9 e3

Or 9 .ixe5 .ixd2+ (Black must now exchange as he no longer has a kn ight to give mate on d3!) 10 �xd2 �xeS with equality: a) 1 1 e3 b6 12 .ie2 .ib 7 13 0-0 0-0-0 b) 1 1 g3 0-0 12 .ig2 lleg 13 e3 d6 14 0-0 .ie6 (15 .ixb7? llab8 and 16

lhb2; 15 llac l = ).

9 .ixd2+ 10 �xd2 d6 I I .ie2 0-0

[Black could also consider castling queenside, e.g. II ... b6 12 e4 .ib7 13 f3 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 f6 15 h4 h5 16 llhe l ?! llhg8 17 't!Vc3 gS 18 hg fg 19 .ih2 g4 20 f4 lLld7 21 .id3 h4, Browne-Speelman, Taxco IZ 198S (0-1, 41). Browne suggests 16 �b llldg8 17 b4 gSIHhg fg l9 .ie3 gives White a small edge -tr. J

1 2 0-0 b6!? Also playable is 12 ... aS which

has often been t ried by the Hungarian Kaposztas. The text move seems more accurate; Black does nothi ng loosening and first completes his development. [A recent example is 12 ... aS 13 lic l b6 14 b3 .ib7 IS .ig3 lifeg 16 lid li.Jd7 17 f3!? 't!VgS Jg .id3 'i!*cS 19 lib! �hH, Korchnoi-Kaposztas, Berlin 198S. White won a long

The Bishop SyJtem 4 �4 25

positional struggle in 66 moves. -tr.]

13 b4 .ib7 {29)

Game S Lukacs-Schiissler

Tuzla 1981

14 .ig3 a) A nother example from a recent tournamen t, Car lesson-Wedbe rg, Sweden 1977, continued 14 liacl �d7 15 't!Vd l a5 16 .if3 .ie4 17

.ixe4 'fi'xe4 I g �d5 life8 19 lHd I h6 20 lld4 'itc7 21 'fi'c6 ah 22 ab lLlfi!! 23 lidd I lLlc6 24 .ig3 �f6 (JO)

./1! :1 � �·�·-w � �&'< 0/.;';, & "Y&;' � t.� r;,;� • ��

� 't!f tA; �it! � � � . �

�� ,, � �:?,)� � �. t.J �

� � �If� � fl"li � fffd )Q, ,.,Q, �· �-'A'} 'H' � w ,,,

� �� . z

Unfortunately IM Tom Wcdbcrg docs not quote a ny more of his game. He only maintains that

26 The Bishop Sysrem 4 i/4

Black stands better. White cannot become active with c4-cS and Black is left in peace to harry the white qucensidc weaknesses after ... lid!:!, 0 0 0 lia2, 0 0 . lida8, 0 0 0 li8a3 and o o . lib2. b) There is also a noteworthy analysis by SchUssler and Wed berg:

14 cS?! de IS be. Acceptance of the pawn sacrifice would suit White: IS 0 0 0 'ti'xcS? 16 lifc l 'We7 (or 0 0 0

'ti'd6) 17 it'd regaining the pawn advantageously (17 0 0 . ltJc6 18 �.1'3!). However, Black consistently follows his dark-squared strategy: IS ... lifdH! 16'Wc3 lldS! 17cb ab 18 life I lieS 19 'Wb2 llaaS. Black stands well and can win quickly if White plays carelessly, e.g. 20 llc3 ltJg6 21 �g3 hS 22 h3 h4 23 �h2 ligS 24 �f l 1!¥e4 2S f3 'tixf3 26 �xc7 'tixh3 27 �xb6 :!:tabS! 28 llb3 (28 1!¥xbS lhg2+!) 28 ...

llxg2+! 29 �xg2 Ii.gS 30 lla2 'tie6! etc.

After the text move, the white bishop an ticipates being jos tled by 0 0 0 ltJg6. but above all White wants to advance his e- and f-pawns. A possible line is 14 0 0 0 h6 IS life!

life!:! 16 e4! (16 .. . �xe4? 17 �f l ! fS Ill f3 �b7 19 f4) 16 ... ltJd7 17 �d3 followed by f4. Even this position is not particularly bad for Black, but the text move avoids all

such problems. 14 15 Ii.fel

ltJd7 aS

1 6 �n rs Black could also play 16 ... lla7

immediately, followed by 17 0 0 0

llfa!l. 1 7 f3 18 'Wd4 1 9 .liabl

lla7 llfa8

Not 19 bS? ltJcS followed by .. . lH8, ... lla!l-e8. The k night has a dream square on cS.

_If w

19 20 ab

For reasons of tournament tactics, the players did not tempt fate in this equal position.

1/z-1/z

So after the quiet continuation 6 ltJbd2 Black has no problems. Therefore the sharper 6 ltJc3 is often tried and has provided much practical material. This continuation is examined in C.

c 4 5 ltJf3 6 ltJc3

ltJc6 �b4+ �xc3+

7 be 1!t'e7 {32)

If Black regains t he pawn on e5 he can play for a favourable endi ng on account of White's pawn weaknesses. Therefore t he continu ation is practically forced.

8 't!t'dS f6 There is no time for 8 . . . 0-0

because of 9 h3. 9 ef �xf6

Three retreats come into consideration: Cl 10 1!t'd3 C2 I 0 1!t'd2 C3 10 'ftdl

C l

.U B

10 1!t'd3 (33)

The Bishop Sysrem 4 i,[4 27

10 d6 II c3

I I g3 �e4 12 i.g2 �c5 13 1!t'c2

4:la5 14 li.Jd2 �c6 15 �d5 0-0 16

i.e3 c6 17 i.xe6+ 1!t'xc6 18 i.xc5 de 19 c3 't!t'hJ with beuer chances for Black -Schussler and Wedbcrg.

II li'Jc4 1 2 i.c2 0-0 (34)

Ou r illustrat ive game No. 9 continues with 13 tl_)d4. One can wonder why Whit e does not play the obvious 13 0-0. The answer lies in the excelle nt analysis of the

Swedish mast ers in the magazine Schucknyll:

13 0-0 .i.g4! It f11s in with Black\ plan Ill

exchange mmor pieces (m particular theoishop on c2) for he ca n then set Ill work on the doubled pawn�

on the c-lilc. 14 li.d4

On a nv neu tral move, 'uch a' 14

ilftl l. UI<Kk realise' the ideal 'ct

up with ... ft_,c5, . . . {Lla5 and ... 't!t'f7. 14 liJc5

28 The Bishop System 4 ii.j4

Set t ing the trap 15 ll:l xc6? be 16 1!t'd l �xe2 1 7 1!fxe2 lhf4! .

15 1!t'd l �xe2 16 1!t'xe2 ll:la5

1 7 liabl b6 A fter J g ... 1!t'f7 followed by ...

ll:lxc4 Black stands better. The final position de monstrates

impressively how a doubled pawn should be 'gripped'.

Some months after the publication of this analysis the Yugoslav G M M ilan Vukic and the Australian I M Ian Rogers met in the New

Year tou rnament at Reggio Emilia. Both were acquainted with the above analysis, so it is not surprising that White avoided the u npleasant exchange of lightsquared bishops.

Game 9 Vukic-Rogers

Reggio Emilia 1983-84

( I d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ll:l g4 4 �f4 ll:lc6 5 ll:lf3 �b4+ 6 ll:lc3 �xc3+ 7

be 1!t'e 7 8 1!t'd5 f6 9 ef ll:lxf6 I 0 't!rd3 d6 I I c3 0-0 1 2 ..te2 �e4)

But not i m mediately 12 ... i.g4 because after 13 h3 ..txD 14 �xf3 the �quare e4 is not available for the black knight and he therefore cannot carry out the prom1smg manoeuvre ... ll:le4-c5.

13 ll:ld4 This way .. . ..tg4 1s radically

prevented. 1 3 ll:lc5

14 1Wdl ll:le5 (35)

14 . . . ll:la5 would be inaccu rate

here because of 15 ll:lb3 ! and White could exchange one of the enemy knights.

After the tex t move 15 ll:lb3 would no longer be so good: 15 . . .

ll:le6 16 ..tg3 b6 followed by .. . �b7. The k night would have no future on b3 and would have to return. M oreover, the formation of the black pawns on b6 and d6 is 'poison' for the doubled pawns which White can never dissolve.

1 5 0-0 �h8 16 licl �d7 17 1Wc2 1Wf7

How does White protect t he pawn on c4? A part from the text move 1 8 ll:lb3 still comes into consideration with the idea 1 8 ... ll:lxc4? 1 9 ll:l xc5 de 20 �xc4 'i!¥xc4 21 �xc7, but Black can play better: 1 8 . .. �f5 1 9 1!t'd l ( 1 9 't!t'b2 ll:lcd 3 )

1 9 . . . �cd 7 fo l lowed by ... ..te6. 1 8 �xe5 de 19 ll:lf3 1!t'e7

20 lLld2 J.c6 2 1 J.f3 e4 22 J.e2 lH6 23 lLlb3 llh6 24 lLlxcS \!hcS 25 llcdl •es 26 h3

26 g3? _.e6 and . . . \!t'h3. 26 't!lgS 27 J.g4 llg6

Threatening . . . h5, so White prevents this with his next move.

28 _.e2 •as 1/z-'lz

The players agreed a draw on account of the variation 29 J.d7 _.g5 (29 . . . J.xd7? 30 llxd7 't!lg5 3 1 'it"g4 _.xg4 32 hg llc6 33 llfd I llg8 34 ll l d4! ) 30 J.g4 'ft'a5 3 1 .id7 _.g5 with repetition of moves.

C2 10 .. d2 d6 I I e3 ( 36)

Stahlberg lost with the slow build-up I I lLld4 0-0 12 f3 J.d7

The Bishop System 4 J.,f4 29

1 3 e4 to Richter at Swinemi.inde 1 930: 1 3 . . . lLlxe4 1 4 fe lLlxd4 1 5 J.e3 ( 1 5 \!t'xd4 llxf4; 1 5 c d _.xe4+ 16 .ie3 llae8) 1 5 . . . lLle6 fol lowed by . . . J.c6 and . . . llae8. White's position is hopeless.

I I 0-0 1 2 lLld4

1 2 .ie2 .ig4 will transpose to C t .

After 1 2 .id3 lLle5 1 3 0-0 lLlxf3+ 14 gf .ih3, van den BroeckTrajkovic, Vienna 1 953, Black had a good game, e.g. 1 5 llfd I lLld7 1 6 .ie4? g 5 1 7 \!t'd5+ �h8 I H .ig3 ( I H .ixg5? llg8 and . . . h6) 1 8 . . . lLlc5 with numerous possibilities for Blac k , such as . . . h5, . . . .ie6, . . . llae8 etc . White would have to play 16 J.fl but after 16 . . . .ixfl 1 7 lhfl lLlc5 Black sti l l has an excellent game.

1 2 1 3 .ie2 14 'tWc2

lLle5 lLle4

14 't!ld I ltJc5 transposes to game 9.

1 4 lill·5 15 0-0 b6

with a good game for Black . e . g . 1 6 lLlb3 lLlcd7 followed by . . . 't!fl7 . . . . a5 and . . . .ia6.

C3 10 't!fd l

White retreats to a sq u a re where he cannot be at tacked by a

knight, as on d3 or d2.

30 The Bishop System 4 iif4

Game i O Inkiov-Djukic

Bor 1 983

( I d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:Jg4 4 lLlf3 lt..Jc6 5 .i.f4 �b4+ 6 li:Jc3 �xc3+ 7 be 1t'c7 8 1t'd5 f6 9 cf li:Jxf6)

10 1t'dl d6 I I e3 0-0 1 2 �e2 li:Je4 13 l:lcl $>h8

[ 1 3 . . . �g4 14 0-0 $>h8, Campos-Akesson, Valjevo 1 984, may be more accurate - tr. ]

14 0-0 [Rogers gives 1 4 tiJd2! tDc5 1 5

tiJb3 ttJe4 1 6 0-0 as an improvement - tr. ]

Jl w

14 15

g5 J.g3 h5 (37)

Hardly orthodox! Black threatens to trap the bishop by . . . h4, and the usual procedure in this sort of position, namely h3 or h4, fails to 16 ... ttJxg3 1 7 fg 9xe3+.

16 J.d3 ttJc5 1 6 . . . h4 is refuted by 1 7 J.e5+!

ttJxe5 1 8 .ixe4. 1 7 h4

[Rogers gives 17 tDh4 gh 1 8 1t'xh5+ $>g8 1 9 .ixh4 W'g7 as unclear - tr. ]

1 7

1 8 gf

l:lxf3! ! (38)

Perhaps White should reluctantly accept the following variation: 1 8 1hf3 J.g4! (much better than 1 8 . . . ttJxd3 1 9 1t'xh5+) 19 W'd5 .ie6 20 'ftfJ ttJxd3 2 1 'ftxh5+ 1t'h7 22 W'xh7+ $>xh7 23 l:lcd 1 gh 24 .ixh4 .ixc4. Naturally White stands worse here but in the game he succumbs in a few moves to a furious attack by the Yugoslav master.

1 8 gh 19 .ih2

[Rogers queries this and gives as White's only chance 1 9 .if4 J.h3 20 $>h2 J.xfl 2 1 J.xfl ttJe6 22 1td5! - tr. ]

19 �h3 20 'it>hl 21 lilgl

Ilg8! lilxgl+

[These moves were all repeated in Lanzani-Rogers, N uoro 1 984, and at this point White resigned! tr. ]

22 'i!t'xgl 22 �xg l 'irg7+ 23 .ig3 hg is

even worse for White. 22 lL\xd3 23 lii:dl 1!t'f7 24 .tr4

Or 24 f4 \Wxc4 threatening 'tie4+.

24 li:ld4 25 gr \Wxf4

As Black wins quite sadistically after 26 lii:d3 li:le5 27 lii:e3 b6 28 1te I .ie6, White prefers the end with horror to the horror without end.

26 1fg6 27 'it>h2 28 1tf6+

0-1

1t'xf3+ \Wxdl �g8

The Bulgarian GM could now convince himself that the black king wanders to d7. Then diagonal checks are prevented by the bishop on h3 and check on the

The Bishop System 4 �4 J l

seventh rank can be parried b y . . . li:le7.

Summary

After the moves I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:lg4 4 iJ4 the Bishop System arises. Black is well advised first of all to leave the bishop on f4 in peace. As we have seen in A, 4 . . . g5? irrevocably weakens one's own position. Pieces can return after an unsuccessful excursion, but pawns cannot.

The best method is 4 . . . li:lc6 5 li:lf3 .ib4+. After 6 li:lbd2 the dfile is blocked, so the white queen cannot hurry to the help of the pawn on e5. Black then plays 6 . . . 1!t'e7 and regains the sacrificed pawn with a satisfactory game.

After 6 li:lc3 White can indeed hold the pawn on e5 but only at the cost of shattered pawns on the c-file. Subsequently Black plays . . . f6, accepting to play on a pawn down, but he gets compensation for this in pressure on the e- and f-files.

3 The Alekhine System 4 e4

1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ltJg4 4 e4 (39)

In the first chapter White protected the accepted gambit pawn by 4 ltJf3 and in the second chapter by another method 4 .if4. In both cases Black regained the gambit pawn.

In the Alekhine system White returns the booty immediately and stnves for superiority in the cen tre.

The White pawn structure e4/c4 assures White a strong point on d5, but his light-squared bishop is somewhat limited in mobility. I n

some variations dark-square weaknesses can arise in White's camp. It is generally considered a rule in this system t hat exchange of darksquared bishops is favourable for Black .

Black can protect the attacked knight (4 . . . h5), continue in gambit style (4 . . . d6) or recapture on e5 (4 . . . ltJxe5). The main possibilities are: A 4 . • . h5 8 4 . . . d6 5 ed C 4 . . . d6 5 .ie2 D 4 . . . ltJxe5 5 f4 ltJg6 E 4 . . . ltJxe5 5 f4 ltJec6

Other continuations: a) 4 . . . 'it'h4?? 5 g3 1Wh5 6 .ie2 d6 7 h3 winning a piece. b) 4 . . . ltJxf2?? 5 'it>xf2 1Wh4+ 6 g3 't!fxe4 7 lLlf3 .ic5+ 8 'it>g2 and after ltJc3 followed by ltJd5 White is winn ing. c) Untes ted here is 4 . . . .ib4+ after which White must find the best of three possible continuations: c I) 5 lLlc3 ltJxe5 6 f4 ltJg6 transposes to D .

c2) 5 i.d2 i.xd2+ 6 tfxd2 lLl xe5 7 tfc3 '*ke7 ( 7 ... lLlbc6 8 f4 wins the pawn on g7) with a good game fo r Black. 8 f4 now gets White into

difficulties (8 .. . lLlg6 9 tfxg7? 1!Vxe4+) and aftt:r the plausible

continuation 8 lLld2 0-0 9 i.t:2

lLlbc6 10 lbgf3 d6 I I 0-0 f5 Black is active. Remember the abow rule referring to the exchange of darksquared bishops. c3) 5 lLld2 lLlxe5 6 a3 seems to be

favourable for White. 6 ... i.xd2+ 7 i.xd2 followed by 8 i.c3 is

obviously advantageous for White and after 6 ... i.e7 (6 ... i.c5 7 lLlb3) 7 lLlb3 or 6 ... i.e7 7 f4 lLlec6 (7 . .. lLlg6) 8 llJdf3 followed by ..id3 and llJe2 White is better developed.

A

40 w

4 h5? ! (40)

The Alekhine System 4 e4 33

of the move ... h 5, namely the continued pressure against f2. I t is tht: refort: natural to drive the knight on g4 away. Late r in tht: game ... h5 will prove a weaknt:ss on Black' s kingside. For exa mplt: , short castling is tt:mporarily prevented. Now: A I 5 h3 A2 5 i.e2

A I

5 h3

Game I I Ahues-H elling

Berlin 1932-33

( I d4 llJ f6 2 c4 e5 3 de llJg4 4 t:4 h� 5 h3 llJxe5 6 i.e3 i.b4+ 7 llJd2 f5

Later this move was quitt: rightly criticised, though Black also stands worse after other moves. ECO me ntions 7 ... b6 but after H 't!fbJ

i.e7 9 0-0-0 i.b7 10 f4 li1gt1 I I lLlgiJ lLlc6 12 c5 ! White st:.trHh bet ter, e.g. 12 .. . 0-0 U "t!t"d51 followt:d b y "iWxh5 o r 12 . . . II bS 13 tfcJ 0-0 14 g4 ' .

8 aJ :ii...e7

9 "i!t'b3 [ija6

10 0-0-0 d6 This move contains some traps. I I cS! li' xeS

For exam ple 5 llJ IJ �c5 or 5 f4'! 12 i.c5 6 lLlhJ lLl c6 (7 i.e2? '*kh4+) U are good for Blac k. 14

We see here the only advantage I S

�xeS li IC� �hi lLl xe5

de � gS +

ti'e7 if xeS

34 The Alekhine Sys1em 4 e4

16 li:lf3 (41)

Black is lost . 16 . . . 1!t'xe4+ fails to 1 7 �d3 e.g. 17 . . . 1!t'f4 Ill g3 1!t'xf3?? 19 �b5+ followed by 20 1!t'xf3.

16 . . . 1!t'e7 1 7 ef ..ixf5+ Ill ..id3 ..ixd3 t- 19 1!t'xd3 threatening 1!t'g6+ and il he I + is completely hopeless for Black .

There only remains 16 . . . 1!t'f6 17 ..id3 (here 17 ef ..ixf5+ 1 8 ..id3 would not be so good because of 18 . . . 0-0-0; the queen being on fti rather than e7 protects the bishop on f5) 1 7 . . . f4 1 8 e5 1!t'h6 (otherwise ..igti+) 19 ..ie4 ..ieti ( 19 . . . c6 20 lid6; 19 . . . libll 20 'tWa4+ followed by 1!t'xa7) 20 1lrb5+! c6 21 't!Vxb7 0-0 22 lid6 liaell 23 t!¥xc6 threatening li:lxg5 fol lowed by llxe6 and if 23 . . . ..idll 24 lixe6 followed by .idS .

A2 5 .i.c2

After 4 . . . h5, 5 h3 is good enough but one must also examine 5 .i.e2

on account of the following move order: 4 e4 d6 5 .i.e2 and only now 5 . . . h5.

After 5 ..ie2 Black has two possibilities: A21 5 .. . ..ic5 A22 5 . . . d6

A21 5 ..ic5

Game 1 2 Golombek-Tartakower

Birmingham 195 1 ( I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e 5 3 de li:lg4 4 e4 h5 5 ..ie2 �c5)

6 li:lh3 6 .i.xg4 1!t'h4! 7 g3 1!t'xg4 ll 1!t'xg4

hg gives Black superb play for the pawn on accou nt of the open h-file and the light-square weaknesses in White's posi tion. 8 f3 't!re6 9 f4 d6 and later . . . h4 also gives Black excellent chances.

6 lllxc5 7 .i.g5 ..ie7

On 7 . . . f6 White natural ly plays not ll .i.xh5+ because of ll . . . g6. bu t 8 ..id2 h4 9 ..ic3 and subsequently li:lf4, as in the game.

8 ..ixe7 1!t'xe7 It is true that the exchange of

the dark-squared bishops is pleasant for Black but here this plus has been bought at some price in view of the perma nent wea kness at h5 and the loss of tempo ..ic5-e7 .

9 0-0 d6

I 0 lLlf4 c6 I I ll::Jc3

After the risky continuat ion I I ll::Jxh5'? ! g6 1 2 ll::Jg3 Wh4 1 3 h3 Black has a strong attack on the hfile. If he wants he can even force a draw by 1 3 . . . i.xh3 1 4 gh \!t'xh3 1 5 lie I ..Wh2+ 16 'i!; fl \!t'h3+ etc

I I i.g4 1 2 r3 i.d7

Black has been able to save his pawn on h5 and control the square d5 but these measures have cost him time. White has a great space advantage.

13 \!t'b3 b6 14 \!t'a3

Setting his sights on the weakness on d6.

1 4 lih6 IS b3 \!t'f6 16 \!t'cl ll::Ja6 1 7 lidl 0-0-0 (42)

18 lLlbS! This kn ight is immune: 1 8 . .. cb

1 9 cb+ tt:\c5 ( 19 . . . liJc7'!? 20 liJd5) 20 lLld5 'i!fe6 21 b4. White regains

The A lekhine Sysum 4 e4 35

the pie<.:e, has a magnificent outpost on d5 and the possibil ity of opening up the black king quickly by a4-a5.

18 i.e8 19 liJd4 gS 20 ll::Jh3?

A mi!>take in a superior position. 20 li:ld3 ! would have maintained the advantage , e .g. 20 . . . g4 2 1 lLlf5 lig6 22 f4 with a clear advantage to White.

20 �4! 21 lLlfS lig6 22 lilf4 �f! 23 't!¥a3 fe 24 't!¥xa6+ \.t>b8 25 li:he2 \!t'gS 26 g3 ..W�4 27 cS bS 28 ll::Jc3 h4 29 lixd6 lidxd6 30 cd hg 31 li:lxg3 li:lf3+ 32 '-&>f2 li'lxh2 33 tt:\ce2 ..Wf3+ 34 \t>e I 1hg3 35 'if aS l!lb7

The bla..: k king !lees from the threat of tic7+ followed by \!t'c8 mate.

36 37 38

�c7+ �c8+ \!t'c7+

\t>a6 was \!tb4??

Time-trouble. 37 . . . �ao leads to a draw by pe rpetual check .

39 a3+ 'i!;cS If 39 . . . 'i!.>xbJ 40 liJd4+ forks


king and quc:en. 40 �xa7+ 'it>xd6 41 li:dl+ (43)

Black must now give up his queen as it is lost anyway, but only for a knight, after 41 . . . 'it>e6 42 lt:\d4+, while 41 . . . 'it>e5?? leads to mate after 42 'tlre7+.

41 'tlrd3 42 li:xd3+ li:xd3 43 �b8+ 'it>e7 44 1!Vxh1 li:xb3 45 'it'e5+ 'it> Ill 46 lt:\d4 li:bl+ 47 \t>d1 ..td7 48 't!¥d6+ \t>e8 49 lt:\xc6 ..txc6 50 'it'xc6 + �Ill 5 1 \t>c1 li:e 1 52 't!¥xb5 li:xe4 53 a4 1 -0

This game: "tipped over" twice as a result of the mistakes on moves 20 and 3M, but from the point of view of opening theory it was convincing enough.

A22 5 d6 6 ed ..txd6 7 lt:\f3 lt:\c6 8 lt:\c3 ..te6 9 h3 lt:\ge5

Christofferson-Stahlberg, Sweden 1928. White now continued 10 lt:\xe5 and after I 0 . . . lt:\xe5 I I ..te3 lt:\xc4 ( I I . . . .ixc4?? 1 2 .ixc4 lt:\xc4 1 3 'it'a4+) 1 2 .ixc4 .ixc4 1 3 'it'd4 .ie6 1 4 'irxg7 �d7 1 5 0-0-0 stood clearly better.

Summary

4 . . . h5 is not a good continuation. Both 5 h3 and 5 .ie2 give White the advantage.

More complicated is 4 . . . d6 which is the theme of the next two sections.

B

44 w

4 5 ed

6 .tel

d6 .ixd6 (44)

With superficial moves White

can get a disadvantage, e.g. 6 lLlf3'! ..ic5 ! 7 'ffxd8+ 'it>xd8, when Black regains the pawn and stands better.

6 rs The alternative is 6 . . . li:lf6.

Rishkin-Kazantsev, USSR 1954, continued 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 lLlf3 ..ib4 9 'it'c2 ..ixc3+ 1 0 be lle8 I I e5 li:lg4 1 2 ..if4 lLlc6 1 3 lld l 't!t'e7 14 lld5 ..ie6 1 5 h3! lLlh6 ( 1 5 . . . ..ixd5?? 1 6 hg threatening 'ffxh7+ and 'ffh8 mate; 1 5 . . . li:lgxe5 16 Ii: xe5 with great advantage for White) 1 6 0-0! ..ixd5? (a mistake in the worse position) 1 7 cd lLla5 1 8 li:lg5 g6 1 9 lLle4 'it>g7 20 ..ig5 'ffd7 2 1 't!t'd2 lLlg8 ( 2 1 . . . lLl f5 22 ..if6+ and g4) 22 lLlf6 1 -0. Black has no good defence to the mating attack li:lxg8, ..if6+ and 1!t'h6.

7 er 'ffe7 The starting point of two im

portant games.

Game 1 3 Capablanca-Tartakower

Bad Kissingen / 928

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:lg4 4 e4 d6 5 ed ..ixd6 6 ..ie2 f5 7 ef 1!t'e7)

Jose Raoul Capablanca, World Champion 192 1 -27, was famous, above all, for his fantastic technique in simple positions. He liked to avoid unclear complications. Here there was the opportunity, admittedly at the cost of the opponent's init iative, to win a piece: 8 c5 ..ixc5 9 'tlra4+ li:lc6 10 'it'xg4.

The Alekhine System 4 e4 3 7

We will see the consequences of this piece sacrifice in the next game. In this game Capablanca continued quietly:

8 lLlrJ 9 ..igS

I 0 li:lc3 I I lLldS

..ixf5 lLlf6 lLlc6 W'n

1 2 0-0 0-0-0 1 3 li:ld4 lLl xd4 1 4 'ffxd4 c6?

Better was 1 4 c 5 1 5 't!t'h4 li:lxd5 1 6 cd ( 16 ..ixd8? ltJf4 ! ) 1 6 . . . llde8 as given by Euwe i n his book on Capablanca.

1 5 ..ixf6 gf (45) I n the above-ment ioned work

Euwe now gives 16 't!t'xa7 ! cd 1 7 cd with the possibi lities: a) 17 ... 1!t'xd5 18 Ii:fd l 1!t'e5 19 llac I + �d7 20 'ffxb7+ 'it>e8 2 1 ..ih5+ wins. b ) 17 . . . ..ib8 18 Ii:ac l + 'it>d 7 1 9 'it'c3 llc8 2 0 ..ib5+ 'it>d8 2 1 'ffb6+ ..ic7 22 Ii:xc7 and wins ( n . . . 1 hc 7 23 d6; 22 . . . tt'xc 7 2J 't!t'xf6+ ) . c ) 17 . . . <itd7 18 :i.IIe l 1!t')\d5 19 �f.l W'b5 20 ..ixh7 again winning.

45 � · - %� � @% -. ... , / ?7:@ '" ·' w �&'1 & "1C/" '%£% \lUI 1//X � - �� - � ·

� · � r&t � a � ttJ m .t�

� A \illi � �fl· B o �� • � a a � � /:!; � - _i � [!; � g,· ·� � � ;a ;"�"

38 The A lekhine System 4 e4

1 6 1hf6? Now Black could save h imself

by 16 . . . 't!rg6! 1 7 't!rxg6 (but not 1 7 ll:Je7+ i.xe7 I !:! 't!t'xe7 llhe8) 1 7 . . . hg 18 lt'Je3 i.xh2+ 1 9 �h I i.f4+ 20 �g l i.h2+ and draws by perpetual check - Euwe. To his misfortune Black missed this possibility.

1 6 't!rxf6 1 7 ll:Jxf6 i.eS 1 8 i.g4 i.xf6

Better was 1 8 . . . i.xg4 19 ll:Jxg4 i.xb2 20 llab l i.d4 ( Euwe and Tartakower). White must still lose some tempi (h3, �h2) before he can become active with f4.

19 i.xfS+ �c7 20 lii:ad l i.xb2 21 lii:xd8 lii:xd8

If 2 1 . . . �xd8 22 lii:b l and 23 lii:xb7.

22 23 24

i.xh7 g3 h4

lld4 ll xc4 bS

The pawn race begins. Naturally, with an extra pawn and a freer run for his passed pawns, White holds the better hand. The endgame artist Capablanca once again plays the rest of the game magnificently.

25 �g2 aS 26 hS i.g7 27 f4 i.h6

Clearly directed against g4. 28 llel lla4 29 i.g8 lld4 30 lle7+ lld7 31 llxd7+ �xd7

32 �1'3 cS 33 g4 c4 34 gS i.f8 35 h6 a4

If 35 . . . c3 36 i.b3 stops the pawn. 36 rs �c6

Or 36 . . . c3 37 �e2 b4 38 h7 i.g7 39 f6 i.h!:! 40 �d3 .

3 7 h7 38 f6 39 f7

1 -0

i.g7

i.h8

While the end of the game was a clear success for White, the opening was not particularly so if we remember the possible improvements for Black on move 1 5 ( . . . c5).

Three years after this game the critical position on the 7th move occurred again in practice. But this time it was not two such famous names as Capablanca and Tartakower at work, but two little known correspondence players.

Thus it happened that this game almost remained unnoticed by the chess world; in large reference works such as ECO it is not even mentioned, let alone analysed . The American Josef Staker, whose booklet on the Budapest Gambit is often quoted in this book , has dug it up from somewhere.

Game 1 4 Egli-Bauer

Correspondence 1 931

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ltJg4 4 e4 d6

5 ed �xd6 6 �e2 f5 7 ef 'tlre7) This time the criti�:al piece

sacrifice is put to a severe test . 8 c5! .ixc5 9 'ti'a4+ ll:lc6

10 'ti'xg4 (46)

10 ll:ld4? This loses quickly, but others

are no better: a) 10 . . . .ixf5 ( in ECO this is i ncorrectly given an exclamation mark, att ributed to Tarta kower) I I 'ti'xf5 ll:f8. Now a retreat of the white queen gives Black a raging attack after ... �xf2+ and . . . ll:d8+ but 1 2 .ig5 ! (Staker) puts an end to Black's hopes: a l ) 12 . . . 'tlfd6 1 3 'tlre4+ a l l ) 13 .. . 'it'd7 1 4 �g4+ a 1 2) 13 . . . 'itfl 1 4 .ic4+ a l 3) 13 ... ll:le7 1 4 'ti'xe7+ a 14) 13 . . . ll:le5 14 ll:lf3 a2) l 2 . . . ll:xf5 1 3 .ixe7 .ixf2+ 1 4 'it'fl 'it'xe7 1 5 ll:lf3 and White must win with careful play. a3) 12 . . . .ixf2+ 13 'ti'xf2 1i'b4+ ( 1 3 . . . 1lt'xg5 1 4 ll:lf3 'ti'c l + 1 5 �d l


followed by 0-0) 14 �d2 'tlrxb2 1 5 'fre3+ and wins. b) 10 ... 0-0! I I 'ti'c4+ 'it'h8 1 2 ll:lf3 1lxf5 1 3 0-0 b5 1 4 'ti'xb5 ll:lb4. So far this is analysis by the Hungarian correspondence master Dr Balogh, who continues incorrectly here 1 5 .id3 c6 1 6 1Wc4 1lxf3 1 7 gf .ia6 with advantage to Black. Correct is 1 5 ll:lc3 ! Sl,a6 1 6 'ti'xa6 ll:lxa6 1 7 .ixa6 with advantage t o White who has three pieces and a pawn for the queen a nd can easily consolidate his position with �b7 followed by �e4.

I I ifh5+! 'it'd7 Other possibil it ies give no pros

pects of success: a) I I . . . g6 1 2 fg! ll:lc2+ 1 3 'it'd ! ll:lxa l l 4 g7+ etc. b) I I . . . 'it'd8?? 12 �g5 or 11 . . . 'i!t'f7 1 2 'ti'xf7+ 'it'xf7 1 3 .id I is not worth discussing. c) 11 . . . 'it'f8 1 2 f6! gf 1 3 .ih6+ �g8

14 ll:lc3! ll:lc2+ 15 'it'd I ll:lxa I 1 6 Sl.c4+ Sl.e6 1 7 'ti'xc5 ! ! ( 1 7 . . . 'frxc5 1 8 SL.xe6 mate) is the prettiest va riation of Dr Balogh's given in Staker's booklet .

12 Sl,g5 'ti'e5 13 ll:lc3 ll:lc2+ 14 �n ll:lxal 15 'ti'f7 + 't>c6

Or 1 5 . . . Sl.e7 16 ll:lf3 'ifd6 1 7 ll:le4 'ti'b4 1 8 ll:le5+ 'it'd8 1 9 ll:ld 3

and wins. 16 Sl.f3+ 'it>b6

Or 1 6 . . . 'it'd6 1 7 ll:lb5 mate . 1 7 .if4 1-0


If the black queen moves White mates on c7. 17 . . . �!hf4 (1re7) 18

lLld5+ wins the queen. This is a l l wel l and good, but

such complicated variations are not to everyone's taste. For this reason White sometimes forgoes taking on d6 and continues his development. This is the theme of c.

c

47 B

4 d6 S i.e2 (47)

In this way White avoids all the complicatio�s of B . The game is conducted on quiet, positional lines.

Black can play 5 . . . h5 which leads to a position already examined in A (see game 1 2) .

S lLlxeS 6 f4

Black has three knight moves at his disposal: Cl 6 . . . lLlec6 C2 6 . . . lLlg6 C3 6 . . . lLlg4

C l 6 lLlec6 7 lLlf3 i.g4

8 0-0 i.e7 9 lLlc3 lLld7 10 h3 i.xf3 1 1 i.xf3 0-0 1 2 i.e3 lLlb6 1 3 b3 i.f6 1 4 'tfd2 lLle7 1 5 liad l with advantage to White, Ulvestad-Haro, Malaga 1 965 .

C2 6 lLlg6 7 lL!f3 lLlc6

8 0-0 i.e7 9 lLlc3 0-0 1 0 .te3 lieS I I 'tfd2 .tf6 1 2 lLld4 .td7 1 3 liae I lL!xd4 1 4 .txd4 i.c6 1 5 i.d I , Katajisto-de Greiff, Amsterdam 01 1 954, and after manoeuvring the bishop to c2 White had a permanent plus due to his overwhelming space advantage.

Both these examples are given in ECO by IM M inev.

C3 6 lL!g4

A try of the American Mayers who has been much involved in the Budapest Gambit and who publishes his analysis in his own occasional bulletins.

The knight on g4 is i ndirectly protected: 7 .txg4 'tfh4+ 8 g3 'tfxg4 and Black stands well .

White must play differently: 7 l[jf3

Now: C31 7 . . . .te7 C32 7 . . . lLlc6

7 $t.e7 Mayers was mainly conc�:rn�:d

with the combination 8 0-0 d5!? 9 �:d .ic5+. Even here ev�:rything is not clear, but it remains an academic question as White can get an advantage by simple means .

8 ti:Jc3! 0-0 9 0-0 ti:Jc6

H�:re 9 . . . d5 is completely wrong: 1 0 �xd5 �xd5 I I ti:Jxd5 .ic5+ 1 2 'it>h I and . . . ti:Jf2+ i s �:xcludcd because of th�: threat ti:Jxc7. I f Black had played 8 . . . ti:Jc6 inst�:ad of castling, Mayers' idea is still not f�:asible: 8 . . . ti:Jc6 9 0-0 d5 I 0 cd .ic5+ I I 'it>h I ti:J�:7 ( I I . . . ti:Jf2+'!? 1 2 l hf2 and dc) 1 2 �e l and White is simply two pawns up.

I 0 h3 ti:Jf6 I I .ie3 lle8 1 2 li:Jd4 .if8 1 3 .if3

.id7 14 llc l li:Jxd4 1 5 .ixd4 .ic6 16 �d3 g6 1 7 llfd 1 .ig7 1 8 b4 a6 1 9 a4 . White has a big space advantage.

C32 7 �c6 8 0-0 .id7 9 li:Jc3 .ie7

10 h3 li:Jf6 I I eS de 1 2 fe li:Jg8

1 2 . . . li:Jh5'! 1 3 'it>h2! followed by g4.

13 .ie3 f6 14 .id3! ( 48)

The Alekhine .\'ystem 4 e4 41

Black has a very poor posit ion. Rcshcvsky-Denker, Syracuse 1934. There is nothing to be done about the simple White plan 'tit'c2 and llae I or llad I . Furthermore, 14 . . . liJx�:s·r! fa ils to 15 lt'Jxc5 re l h �h5+ g6 1 7 �xg6+! h g I H .lixg6 mate. Equally horrible for Black 1 s

14 . . . fe 1 5 liJxeS liJf6 ( 1 5 . . . liJxe5 16 �h 5+ g6 1 7 �xeS l2Jf6 I H 1Ixf6) 1 6 ll xf6! .ixf6 1 7 'i!Vh5+ g6 18 .ixg6+ and you can find the rest for yourself.

Summary

In the variation 4 . . . d6 a sharp struggle arises after accepting the pawn ( B). Although White has advantages, he is running a few r i�b. Declining the gambit with 5 .ie2 (C) assures White a clear space advantage without any problems.

It is advisable for Black to play 4 . . . liJxeS immediately after 4 e4. In those variations (the theme of the last two sections of this chapter) Black has the best prospects of satisfactory counterplay.


D 4 5 f4

ll::l xe5 ll::lg6 (49)

The advantage of this move is that the pawn on f4 comes under fire. What can prove a disadvantage is that White always has f5 at his disposal. This advance cannot be made now (and usual ly not in the next few moves) as Black would then gladly put his knight on e5, the classic square of operations in the Budapest Gambit.

White must therefore first fight to control this square. Dl 6 llJO 02 6 ..ie3

First we look at some sidelines: a) 6 ll::lc3 .tb4 7 ..ie3 transposes to 02. The alternative is 7 .td2 .txc3 8 ..ixc3 ll::lxf4 9 .txg7 JigS 10 .tc3 ll::lxg2+ I I .txg2 lixg2 with a sharp position in which White hardly has compensation for the lost pawn. b) 6 a3 and now Black can equalise easily with 6 . . . a5 followed by . . .

lt:\a6 and . . . ..ic5 - Tartakower. For those who like sharp positions here is the analysis from ECO and Staker: 6 . . . ..ic5 7 lLlf3 (7 b4 .txg I 8 lixg I 0-0 9 't!f'f3 d6 10 g4 a5 I I b5 lLld7 1 2 lia2 ll::lc5 1 3 ..ie3 b6 with positional advantage for Black, Mechkarov-Atanasov, corres 1955) 7 . . . d6 8 b4 ..ib6 9 f5 lLlh4 10 ll::lg5 't!f'e7 I I c5 de 12 .tc4 cb (50)

Mechkarov mentions 1 3 ..ixl7+ �f8 with better chances for Black.

Staker gives 1 3 't!f'h5 ll::lxf5 1 4 't!hl7+ 't!f'xl7 1 5 .txl7+ �e7 1 6 ef h6 1 7 .tg6 as won for White ( 1 7 . . . h g 1 8 ..ixg5+ with an attack) but overlooks the simple 1 7 . . . ..id4 ! , e.g. 1 8 lia2 hg 19 .txg5+ ..if6 20 lie2+ �d8 2 1 .txf6+ gf 22 lid2+ lLld7 23 ab c6 and Black, with a strong knight posted on e5 has a satisfactory game (his plan is 24 . . . �c7 and 25 . . . ll::le5, to be followed by . . . a5).

Dl 6 lLlf3 (51)

Threatens f5. Black's best continuation is 6 . . . i.b4+. With reference to 6 . . . i.c5 see the following famous game.

Game I S Alekhine-Seitz

Baden-Baden 1925

( I d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ll:lg4 4 e4 ll:lxe5 5 f4 ll:lg6)

6 ll:lf3 7 f5!

i.c5? ll:lh4?

Relatively better was 7 . . . ll:le7 but not 7 . . . ll:le5 8 ll:lxe5 't!t'h4+ 9

g3 't!t'xe4+ 1 0 't!t'e2 't!t'xh I I I ll:lg6+ and wins.

The text sets a simple trap (8 i.g5?? ll:l xf3+) but after the strong reply

8 ll:lg5! Black's disadvantage is already decisive. The knight on h4 is cut off and 8 . . . h6 is refuted by 9 ll:lxf7 c;i;>xf7 10 't!t'd5+ etc.

8 't!t'e7 9 'tlt'g4 f6

Clearly the only move.


10 'tth5+! g6 Or 1 0 . . . c;t;>f8 I I 'ihh4! (but not

I I ll:lxh7+? c;t;>g8 ! ) I I . . . fg 1 2 i.xg5 with enormous advantage to White.

52 w

1 1 1!rxh4 fg 1 2 i.xg5 \!t'f7 1 3 i.e2 0-0 14 nn ll:lc6 1 5 ll:lc3 lLJd4 16 rg 'i!rxg6 1 7 .1Ixf8+ ..txfB 18 ..th5 'trb6 (52)

Black fights ingeniously in a lost position . After the plausible 19 \!t'f2 (protecting b2 and also threatening mate by 1!t'l7+ and 't!t'xf8), Black counters with 1 9 . . . ll:lc2+ ! ! ( 20 1!t'xc2 \!t'g l + 2 1 c;i;>e2 1!rxg2+ and . . . 1!t'xg5) and quite unexpectedly survives.

19 0-0-0 ! i.g7 20 lii:fl ll:le6 21 i.f7+ c;i;>h8 22 i.xe6 't!t'xe6 23 i.f6!

1 -0 White wins in every variation,


e . g . 23 . . . .W.x.f6 24 lhf6 't!fcll 25 'W'h6 �gil 26 lt:ld5 or 23 . . . d6 24 .W.x.g7+ �x.g7 25 't!VgS+ \i'g6 26 \i'e7+ �h6 27 lH6.

As we have just seen so vividly, 6 lt:lf3 threatens f5 immediately. Therefore Black must not delay (6 . . . ..icS?) but check immediately.

53 w

6 .Q.b4+ (53)

Now the main continuation is 7 lt:lc3 (see game 1 6) . White also has: a) 7 lt:lbd2?? lt:lxf4 with advantage. b) 7 .Q.d2 't!fe7 ( threatening both . . . lt:lxf4 and . . . \i'e4+) 8 �f2 ..ixd2 (8 . . . i.e 5+? 9 �g3 ! ) 9 't!rxd2 \i'xe4 10 ..id3 ( 1 0 g3 0-0) 10 . . . 't!fxf4 I I lie I + �d8. This variation is untested but the author can see no compensation for the two sacrificed pawns, e .g. 1 2 't!fc3 't!ff6 1 3 't!fc2 d6 14 lt:lc3 ..ie6 etc. c) 7 �f2 ..ic5+ 8 �g3 ( 8 ..ie3 ..txe3+ 9 �xe3 't!ff6 ! ) 8 . . . d6 9 a3 aS with about equal chances. White must still lose two tempi to hide his king by h3 and �h2. The ending after 10 f5 lt:le5 I I lt:lxeS de

1 2 't!fxdll+ �xdll followed by . . . c6 is rather in Black's favour due to the hole on d4.

Game 16 Chebotayev-lsayev

USSR 1948

( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:lg4 4 e4 lt:lxeS 5 f4 lt:lg6 6 ltJf] ..ib4+)

7 lt:lc3 0-0 We will look at the alternatives

7 . . . d6 and 7 . . . 't!rf6 later. 8 ..id3 d6 9 0-0 ..ixc3

10 be lt:lc6 I I 'W'c2 b6 1 2 lt:ld4 lt:laS 1 3 ..te3 \i'd7

1 3 . . . ..ia6 14 \i'e2 could transpose to the game.

14 lt:lrs ..ta6 IS ..id4 f6 16 't!re2 (54)

Black takes aim at the pawn on c4 much too early. He should have played 16 . . . liae8. Aftc::r 1 7 liD, for example, (with the idea llh3

and 11t'h5) an exchange sacrifice comes into consideration: 1 7 . . . 'tlt'xf5 18 ef llxe2 1 9 i.xe2 llJh4 20 llf2 lLlxf5 and Black still catches the c4 pawn. After 1 6 . . . llae8 1 7 llae I 'tlrf7 Black's chances would be much better than in the game.

1 7 eS! llae8 Or 1 7 . . . .i.xc4 1 8 ef i.xd3 19

'lrxd3 winning the ·pawn on g7 , as 19 . . . gf!? loses to 20 lLlh6+. Furthermore, 1 7 . . . fe? 1 8 fe doesn't help as lt:lh6+ is again threatened and the rook on fl enters the fray.

18 W'g4 fe 19 fe W'e6

1 9 . . . lLlxe5?? 20 lLlh6+. 20 ed .i.xc4 21 .i.xc4 lLlxc4

White now wins with an energetic attack i n which the pawn on d6 plays a key role.

22 lt:lh6+! gh Black has no choice: 22 . . . 'it'h8

23 W'xe6 llxe6 24 lLlf7+ 'it'g8 25 d7 ! wins.

55 w

23 llxfB+ 24 :n+

'it'xfB 'it'g8 (55)


25 d7! 26 de1t"+ 27 'irt1

tie7 'tlhe8 1-0

The threats 'ird5+ and 't!t'f6 cannot both be pa rried. Black's defeat was not absolutely due to the opening. 7 .. . 0-0 must be examined more closely. On his 7th move Black has other possibilities:

56 B

7 llJc3 (56)

a) 7 • . . 'tlrf6 8 e5 1fb6 9 f5 llJe7 l O .i.d3 d5!? (but not 1 0 . . . i.xc3+ 1 1 be d6 1 2 f6 with advantage to White - Staker) with an unclear position after 1 1 f6 d4 or 1 1 ed llJxf5. b) 7 ... d6 8 .id3 i.c5 9 llJa4! and White is a bit better, e.g. 9 . . . .i.b4+ l O �f2! followed b y a3 , o r 9 . . . llJc6 l O llJxc5 de I I .i.e3 with some advantage to White according to Mechkarov. Instead of 8 . . . .i.c5 the following moves c;an be considered: b I) 8 ... 0-0 transposing to game 16 .


b2) 8 . . . a6 9 0-0 .ic5+ 1 0 'it>h 1 lLlc6 b3) 8 . . . .ixc3+ 9 be 1!Vf6 1 0 1!fd2 li::Jd7 followed by . . . lDc5.

D2 6 .ie3 (57)

White prevents 6 . . . .ic5. 6 .ib4+ 7 li::Jc3

7 li::Jd2 is not good on account of 7 . . . 1!Ve7 8 11t'c2 (the natural protection 8 .id3 fails here to 8 . . . 'trd6! wi th a surprising win of a pawn - Steiner) 8 . . . li::Jc6 9 liJgfJ b6 with a good game for Black -Grtinfeld, e.g. 10 a3 .ic5 't; 10 .id3 .ic5 1 1 .ixc5 11t'xc5 12 g3 1!fe3+ 't; 1 0 g3 .ib7 1 1 .ig2 .ic5 = .

7 .ixc3+ 8 be b6!?

An interesting alternative to the possible variation 8 . . . 1!fe7 9 .id3 f5 10 'itc2 fe I I .ixe4 li::Jxf4 1 2 .ixf4 d5 1 3 cd .if5 winning back the piece in a game Meier-Griinfeld.

9 .id3

9 11t'd5? li::Jc6 and White's queen is soon exposed.

9 .ib7 10 li::Jf3 d6 1 1 0-0 li::Jd7

with level chances. White can never play f5 because of the square e5 . I f White does nothing active, there follows . . . 0-0, . . . JileS and . . . lDc5 with pressure against White's centre. Heim-Schroder, 1 96 7, continued sharply 1 2 e5 de 1 3 .ixg6 ( 1 3 fe? .ixf3 1 4 1fxf3 li::Jdxe5) 1 3 . . . hg 1 4 fe 1t'e7 1 5 .ig5 1t'c5+ 1 6 1!Vd4 li::Jf8 1 7 'trxc5 be 1 8 lilab I .ia6 19 li::Jd2 lDe6 20 .if4 (20 .ie3 lilh5) 20 . . . 0-� 2 1 lilb2 lild3 and Black went on to win. The rest of the game is u nfortunately unavailable, but there is no doubting Black's advantage.

This game fragment does not provide enough evidence to make a correct assessment of 8 . . . b6, but this plan certainly deserves further investigation . If it does not hold good, Black still has the example Meier-Griinfeld (see note to Black's 8th) to fal l back on.

Summary

5 . . . li::Jg6 is probably playable. Black has more problems in the variation 6 liJO. In both variations (6 liJO and 6 .ie3) Black must play 6 . . . .ib4+.

In the opinion of the Swedish IMs and Budapest experts Harry

Schiissler and Tom Wedberg, Black has an easier task if he decides on 5 . . . ll:\ec6. This i s the subject of the last section of the Alekhine system.

E 4 5 f4

ll:\xeS ll:\ec6 (58)

Here the black knight is not exposed. Furthermore, black holes have appeared in White's camp (particularly d4). In our first illustrative game the Soviet GM overlooked this hole and only narrowly avoided defeat.

Game 1 7 Vaganian-W edberg

Buenos A ires OJ 1978

( I d4 ll:\f6 2 c4 e5 3 de ll:\g4 4 e4 ll:\xe5 5 f4 ll:\ec6)

6 ll:\f3 .icS 7 ll:\c3 d6 8 .id3 aS (59)

A multi-purpose move. I t controls b4 (countering an eventual a3 and b4) and the bishop on c5

The Alekhine Syslem 4 e4 47

can settle on a7 if necessary (e.g. after ll:\a4 ) .

9 h3 White does something about . . .

.ig4. IM Minev does not like 9 h 3 and cites the fol lowing variation: 9 1t'e2 .ig4 I 0 .ie3 ll:\d4 I I 'tif2 .ixf3 1 2 .ixd4! with advantage to White (Wedberg). However, instead of I I . . . .ixf3?, I I . . . ll:\e6!? comes strongly into consideration ( 1 2 h3? ll:\xf4 ! ; 1 2 0-0? ll:\xf4! ; 1 2 .ixc5 de!? threatening the bishop on d3 and the pawn on f4). Also after 1 2 g3 ll:\c6 Black has a satisfactory game. It was probably just this variation that White wanted to avoid and therefore played 9 h3.

9 ll:\a6 10 ll:\dS .ie6 1 1 a3

I I .ie3 .ixd5! 1 2 .ixc5 .ixe4 with advantage to Black - Wedberg.

1 1 0-0 How should White get castled?

1 2 .ie3 is again refuted by 1 2 . . . .ixd5 and the preparatory 1 2 1!re2


(still to play .i.e3) is answered by 1 2 . . . ll:e8 after which White is in danger on the c-fi le ( 1 3 .i.e3 f5 ! 1 4 0 -0 .i.xd5 1 5 c d fe wins).

1 2 f5 .i.xd5 1 3 cd lDe5 14 lDxe5?!

Relatively better was 14 .i.f4 (Wedberg) though Black still stands somewhat better: 1 4 . . . lDxO+ 1 5 'Wxf3 .i.d4 1 6 0-0-0 1ff6 1 7 litd2 g5! with a dark-squared blockade and use of e5 (Plan: ... lDc5-d7).

14 1fh4+ 1 5 �d2 de 1 6 �c2 .td4 1 7 litO c6 18 d6

If 1 8 de litfc8 with an attack. 18 lilc5 19 f6 litfdB 20 fg (60)

20 litxd6? Correct now was 20 . . . lDxd3! 2 1

1fxd3 (2 1 1ff3? lDf2! wins) 2 1 . . . litxd6 with great, if not already decisive, advantage for Black, e.g.

22 .i.d2 (with the trap 22 ... .i.xb2?? 23 1ff3) 22 . . . "f/e7 23 tro f6 followed by . . . 1hg7, . . . �h8 and . .. litg8. Black would then have a healthy extra pawn, a dominating bishop on d4 and pressure on the g- and d-files, while White cannot do much on the f-file.

21 1ff3 litd7 Or 2 1 . . . 'tlfe7 22 .tc4! . B lack

should have taken this resuscitated bishop earlier.

22 g3! 1re7 But not 22 . . . 1fxh3?? 23 .tc4!

(threatening to t rap the queen by lith 1 ) 23 . . . lite7 24 lith I 1fd7 25 1fh5 and W hite wins.

23 .tc4 lilxe4! 24 .td3!

The only move. 24 11he4 1fc5 25 11re2 b5 leads to the loss of the attacking bishop and Black is running matters again.

24 lOgS Intending to refute the sally 25

1fh5 by 25 . . . e4! (26 .txg5 ed+ 27 Wbl 11re6 etc).

25 .txg5 26 h4 27 litael 28 lite4 29 1ff5

1fxg5 't!fxg7 �hB litgB

Now 29 . . . lite7 30 lilg4! 1fh6! was indicated (Wedberg) and Black could still have played for a win. In time trouble he committed a grave error.

29 litd6??

30 �xf7 3 1 l hf7 32 :iil f8+ 33 :iilf7

1/z-1/z

�xf7 l:ig7 :iilg8

33 . . . l:ih6 34 l:ixb 7 :iilxg3 35 i.c4 ( i f 35 . . . l:ih5?? 36 l:ig4; but on the

other hand Whi te threaten� l:ibll+ followed by l:ig!H and l:ixg3) so Wedberg opted to repeat moves.

Summary

Black stood well out of the opening. 6 ltJf3 al lowing 6 . . . i.c5 is not so good as White has problems with castling. It is natural to prevent 6

. . . i.c5 by 6 i.e3 and this is the main variation of th is section. First we will look briefly at another apparently harmless, but really quite dangerous, move.

El 6 a3!? (61)

A trap. After 6 . . . .ic5?! 7 b4! .ixg l H lbg I 'tth4+ (relatively

The Alekhine Sy.l'tem 4 e4 49

better is M . . . 0-0 but t he n Black has no compensation fo r the los� uf

the bisho p pai r ) 9 g3 'ilt'xh2 1 0 lig2 �h I I I i.b2 Wh ite has po werfu l

compensation for the sacr ificed pawn .

6 aS 7 xd .!Lla6

Black fol l ows t he typical darksquared st rategy of t he Buda pest Gambit and wants to exchange

the bishop on e3 . White can hardly prevent this, e .g . 8 't!t'd5? b6 9 lilf3 i.b7 1 0 i.d3 ltJc5! and Black stands clearly better ( I I .ic2 li:lb4 1 2 �d2 ltJxc2+ 1 3 �xc2 .ixe4; I I .ixc5 .ixc5). The queen move to d5, as almost always in this gambit, does not work out well .

8 �Jc3 xeS 9 �d2

Worse is 9 i.xc5 ltJxc5 as Black can later fix the hole on b3 by . . . a4.

9 I 0 ltJf3 I I i.d3

d6 0-0 lle8 {62)


with a roughly equal game, e .g. 1 2 0-0 .i.xe3+ 1 3 1!he3 lLlc5 1 4 .i.c2 a4 1 5 llae l .i.e6! ( 1 5 . . . f6? ! 1 6 t!Vf2 .i.g4 1 7 lLld4 11fd7 1 8 lLld5 wins - K moch) 16 lLld5 ( 1 6 t!Ve2 lLla5 ! ) 1 6 . . . lLla5 with complicated play, e .g. 17 'itc3 f6 1 8 lLld4 .i.f7 followed by 19 . . . c6. The attack 19 lLlf5 c6 20 t!Vg3 is easily parried by 20 . . . .i.g6.

Summary

Black's counterplay in this variation is based on the weaknesses b3 and c4 in White's position, brought about by the premature advance a2-a3 . We now pass on to the main variation which forgoes interpolating the moves 6 a3 a5 .

E2 6 .i.e3 (63)

White prevents the development of the enemy bishop on c5 , so another square presents itself.

6 .tb4+ 7 lLlc3

White has two other significant

possibilities: a) 7 �1'2 lLla6 8 a3 (8 lLlc3 .i.xc3 9 be leads to the main variation with the 'gift' tempo �f2) 8 . . . .i.c5 and now: a I ) 9 b4? t!Vf6! wins material. a2) 9 .i.xcS lLlxc5 10 'ttc2 'ttf6 is in Black's favour. a3) 9 t!Vd2 'ttf6 10 g3 .i.xe3+ I I <t>xe3 lLlc5 1 2 1!rc3 1!re7 1 3 .i.g2 0-0 is good for Black on account of the bad position of the white king. Black plans 14 . . . a5 and if 14 b4 then 14 . . . lLle6 followed by ... a5 ! . b) 7 lLld2 'ith4+ 8 g3 t!Ve7 and here ECO quotes two practical examples: b I ) 9 .i.g2 a5 10 lLle2 lLla6 I I 0-0 d6 1 2 lLlb3 .i.g4 1 3 h3 .i.xe2 1 4 t!Vxe2 a4 was Pomar-Heidenfeld, Enschede 1 963. b2) 9 trO lLla6 10 0-0-0 lLlc5 I I .i.xc5 .i.xc5 1 2 lLlb3 d6 1 3 lLle2 f5 1 4 lLlxc5 de 1 5 e5 0-0 (followed by . . . .i.e6 and ... litad8) VisierO'Kelly, Malaga 1967, with equality in both cases.

We now examine the following variations in examples from tournament practice: E21 7 ... d6 E22 7 ... 1re7 E23 7 • . . trh4+

Garne t S Chebotayev-Machkin

USSR 1968

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLlg4 4 e4 lt!xe5 5 f4 lLlec6 6 .te3 .tb4+)

7 lt:lc3 8 'tlt'c2 9 0-0-0

1 0 i.e2 1 1 lt:lgxe2 1 2 lt:lg3 1 3 i.xcS

d6 lt:la6 i.g4 i.xe2 't!t'c8 i.cS lt:lxcS

The A lekhine System 4 e4 51

Game l9 Alekhine-Seitz

Hastings 1925-26

( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:lg4 4 e4 lt:lxe5 5 f4 lt:lec6 6 i.e3 i.b4+)

7 lt:lc3 1We7 (64)

1 4 eS de 64 I S lt:lfS lt:le6 w

1 6 fe lt:lxeS? Too optimistic. 16 . . . 0-0 was

indicated , followed by . . . 't!t'e8 and . . . l:ld8. Black certainly has a passive position here.

1 7 l:lhel f6 1 8 lt:le4

By grabbing the pawn on e5 Black has forfeited the possibility of castl ing - e7 is not protected.

1 8 �f8 19 'tlt'f2 lt:ln 20 lt:lcS lt:lxcS 2 1 't!t'xcS+ ll:ld6 22 Ilxd6! cd 23 't!t'xd6+ �n 24 1!re7+ �g6 25 1lt'xg7+ �xfS 26 g4+ �f4 27 11t'xf6+

1-0 The set-up with 7 . . . d6 brought

Black quite a passive position, mainly because this move does nothing about White's centre. In the next game Black immediately exerts pressure against the white pawn on e4.

In comparison with game 1 8 , Black reacts much better here , immediately eyeing the pawn on e4.

8 i.d3? fS? But not like this! A rule of

thumb: pressure on the e-pa.-.·n must be conducted with pieces! Better was 8 . . . i.xc3+ 9 be lt:la6 I 0

'tlt'f3 lt:lc5 I I i.c2 b6 followed by . . . i.b7 and . . . 0-0-0. We will see a similar idea in improved form in the next game.

9 't!t'hS+! A far-sighted manoeuvre. The

a l -h8 diagonal is weakened by the forced . . . g6 and the bishop on e3 will subsequently do great deeds there (see AJekhine's note to Black's 1 6th move).


9 10 't!¥f3 1 1 be

g6 .ixe3+ fe?

Somewhat better was I I . . . d6 though White still has more of the game after 1 2 lt:\e2 0-0 1 3 lt:\g3 lt:\a6 14 0-0 .id7 15 l:l:ab l .

1 2 .ixe4 0-0 13 .idS+ �h8 14 lt:\h3 d6 15 0-0 .ixh3 16 't!¥xh3 'ffd7

Alekhine gives the following variation : 16 . . . lt:ld7 1 7 llae l 1Wg7 1 8 f5 g5 19 llb I llab8 20 f6 lt:lxf6 2 1 .ixc6 be 22 llxb8 l:l:xb8 23 .id4 l:l:f8 24 'i!fe6 and wins.

65 B

1 7 f5! (65)

The decisive move. After 1 7 . . . llxf5 1 8 g4! l:l:xfl + 1 9 l:l:xfl White's attack wins, e .g. 19 . . . •g7 2 0 .ih6; 19 . . . 1re7 2 0 l:l: f7 ; 1 9 . . . lt:\d8 2 0 .id4+ etc.

1 7 gf 18 l:l:ab l !

White wants t o provoke . . . b6 which weakens the position of the

k night on c6. This idea is made clear in the following variation given by Kotov: 18 . . . b6 19 llbe I ( threatening 20 .ih6 followed by 2 1 l:l:xf5 ) 1 9 . . . lt:\a6 20 .ixc6 'ttxc6 2 1 .id4+ �g8 22 1!t'g3+ etc.

In a very bad position Black tries to relieve the pressure by exchanging queens.

1 8 1 9 .ixf4 20 .i.e5+!

1-0

f4 'ti'xh3

If 20 . . . lt:\xe5 2 1 l:l:xf8+ �g7 22 l:l:g8+ �h6 23 gh wins.

Karl Gilg, a Czechoslovak master of German origin who settled in West Germany after the second World War, tried an interesting improvement in the last game of this section. He was able to equalise convincingly. Though Gilg finally lost this game, one should not forget that his opponent , Paul Keres, was one of the greatest chess personalities of the 20th century.

G ame 20 Keres-Gilg

Prague 1 937

( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:\g4 4 e4 lt:\xe5 5 f4 lt:\ec6 6 .i.e3 .ib4+)

7 lt:\e3 1i'h4+ ! Similar to Alekhine's manoeuvre

in the previous game. Here too the queen check is bound to weaken a

diagonal and thus increase the effectiveness of the queen's bishop. It is obvious that Black will subsequently develop his bishop on this diagonal at b7.

8 g3 9 be

1 0 i.d3

.txc3+ 'ti'e7

After 1 0 ..ig2 Black obtains a satisfactory game with 1 0 . . . b6, e.g. I I lLJe2 i.b7 1 2 0-0 �a6 followed by . . . 0-0-0 and . . . lbc5.

1 0 lLJa6 1 1 .tc2!


makes the square rs inaccessible to the white knight and prepares something active such as . . . f6, . . . d6 or . . . �aS .

The game con tinuation i s risky and White assumes the i nitiative .

t s r6? 16 �rs 'ttfl 1 7 ..id4 g6 18 �e3 re 19 re 1!Vh6 20 �d5 li:le6 21 1!Vd3 l:thfl 22 l:tr6

To answer I I �c5 with 1 2 According to Vasconsellos in 1t'd5.

1 1 1 2 �f3 13 0-0!

"Staker" Black could equalise b6 here with 22 . . . �cxd4 23 cd i.xd5

�c5 24 l:txf8 l:txf8 25 cd �g5 26 l:tfl �h3+ 27 �g2 l:txfl 28 �xf l . The

The pawn is poisoned: 1 3 . . . li:lxe4? 14 .txe4 1t'xe4 15 .txb6!

author cannot agree with this judgement. This ending is better for White who can continue, for example, with i.b3 and e6.

followed by Jle I.

66 8

13 14 e5 15 lLJd4 (66)

i.b7 0-0-0

The game is equal. Black should now have played 1 5 . . . g6! which

67 w

22 1fh5 23 lite I li:lcxd4 24 cd i.xdS (67)

Apparently 22 . . . 1rh5 has turned


out all right for Black, e.g. 25 cd lhf6 26 ef \!fxd5 or 25 lhf8 lhf8 26 cd ltJg5. However, there now follows a surprise:

25 i.d1 ! i.xc4 If Black moves his queen, White

plays llxf8 fol lowed by cd. The square f3, in contrast to the previous variation, would then be firmly in White's hands.

26 \!fxc4 'irgS 27 i.f3 'it>b8 28 'irdS c6

29 1rd6+ 'it>b7 30 lhf8 llxf8

Or 30 . . . lDxf8 3 1 e6! lLlxe6 32 lhe6! wins a piece as 32 . . . de

allows 33 1hc6+ 'it>a6 34 'ira4 mate.

31 32

'ti'xd7+ 'irxc6+

1 -0

lLlc7

Despite this loss (to a worldclass player! ) Karl G ilg's idea , now almost fifty years old, still deserves consideration.

4 Rare Systems

I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 eS 3 de lt:lg4

The rare systems are divided into two groups: A White protects the pawn on e5 by various moves apart from 4 lt:lf3 and 4 i.f4, which were examined in the first two chapters. B Other moves.

A White's other means of protect

ing the pawn on e5 are: A I 4 f4 A2 4 't!rd4 A3 4 1idS

A I

6H B

4 f4? (68)

4 .tcS This creates confusion in White's

camp. Now 5 e3 lt:lxe3 6 i.xe3 i.xe3 is clearly better for Black .

s lt:lh3 d6 6 ed cd 7 e4 0-0 8 lt:lc3 lle8

Black has splendid play for the sacrificed pawn, e.g. 9 i.d3 't!t'h4+ 10 �d2 lt:le3 I I 't!t'e2 i.g4 or 9 g3 lt:lc6 I 0 i.d3 't!t'f6 I I lt:ld5 ( I I i.d2 't!Vh6! ) I I . . . 't!t'h6 ! and Black wins, e.g. 1 2 lLlc7 't!rxh3 1 3 lt:lxe8 't!t'g2 1 4 l H I lt:lf2 ( 1 5 't!rd2 i.b4; 1 5 'ft'c2 lt:lb4; 1 5 'ft'e2 i.g4; 1 5 'ft'b3 lt:la5 1 6 'ft'c3 i.b4 ).

The variation 4 f4? is bad. White loses time and weakens the diagonal g 1-a 7.

A2 4 't!t'd4?! (69)

With this move White not only defends the pawn on e5 but at the same time attacks the knight on g4. Therefore 4 't!Vd4 does not lack a cenain logic ; it is in teresting to note that this move is played by many chess computers.

56 Rare Systems

69 B

However it has one disadvantage: the queen is exposed on d4 and really invites the win of a tempo with . . . ltJc6. First, though, something must be done about saving the knight on g4.

Game 2 1 Laszlo-Abonyi Budapest 1 933

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLlg4) 4 'ird4 d6 5 ed

Or 5 lLlf3 lLlc6 comfortably regaining the pawn on e5 with the win of a tempo as the white queen must move.

5 -'.xd6 Naturally . . . -'.b4+ winning the

queen is threatened. Snatching another pawn only increases Black's dangerous initiative: 6 1We4+ (6 't!rxg7 .i.e5! ) 6 . . . .i.e6 7 't!rxb7 lLld7 tl e3 0-0 9 lLlf3 ltJc5 1 0 Wb5 l:lb8 1 1 'ira5 (or 1 1 Wc6 l:lb6) I I . . . lLld3+ followed by . . . .i.b4+ or . .- ltJxf2 - 0- 1 in a computer

game. 6 ltjf3 7 h3

0-0

Black's lead in development is also practically decisive after 7 lLlc3, e.g. 7 . . . lLlc6 8 'ird I -'.c5 9 e3 Wxd l + ! 10 lLlxd l lLlb4.

7 lLlc6 8 't!re4

8 Wd I is immediately refuted by 8 . . . lLlxf2! 9 �xf2 ..ig3+ winning the queen.

70 B

8 l:le8 9 Wc2 lLlb4

10 Wc3 (70)

Black has a crushing advantage and could now decide the game with 10 . . . lLld3+! ( 1 0 . . . -'.f5 ! also wins) I I 'tixd3 ( I I �d2 .i.b4; I I �dl lLldxf2+) I I . . . ..ib4+ winning the queen after 1 2 �d I lLl xf2+ or 1 2 .i.d2 Wxd3.

Instead of this he chooses an admittedly effective but less powerful move:

1 0 lt:le3?! The i ntruder is i nviolable as 1 1

Rare Systems 57

fe?? allows I I . . . �g) male and I I A3 �xeJ Iixe3 1 2 \Wd2 ( 1 2 'tixe3 lLlc2+; 1 2 fe ..ig3 mate) 1 2 . . . lt:ld3+ 1 3 'i!;>d l lt:lxf2+ 1 4 'i!;>e l lt:lxh I wins a rook for Black as the rook on e3 is again taboo ( 1 5 'tixe3?'? �g3+ and mates).

Furthermore I I . . . lt:lec2+ is threatened. Therefore White over-protects c2.

71 w

1 1 lt:la3 12 lt:lxc2

lt:lbc2+ ..ib4 (71)

Naturally this bishop cannot be taken because of 'ttd I mate or . . . lt:lxc2 mate, but after 1 3 �xeJ �xcJ+ 14 b(.; White wuld st ill fight. The "great bluff' has worked. Clearly demoralised by a series of unexpected moves White resigned.

A real curiosity. As far as the variation 4 _.d4 is concerned, the final assessment is that it is not very good as the attacks on the white queen considerably enhance Black's development.

4 'tidS {72)

Rapid mobilisation of the queenside is also the correct method here.

4 lt:lc6 5 lt:lf3

5 f4 lLlb4 6 \We4 �c5 7 lt:lhJ 0-0 8 lt:lc3 f5 9 ef lLlxf6 1 0 't!fb I d5 I I a3 ltlc6 12 cd lLlxd5 1 3 1!ta2 �e6 with advantage to Black - ECO.

s d6 White now has two possibil it ies:

A31 6 �gS A32 6 ed

A31 6 �g5 �e7 7 �xe7 li'Jxe7 8 'ti'e4 de

Black stands well here . 9 lt:JxeS·1 is the 'Sc hkchter trap' ( named

after the A ustr ian grandmasta

Carl Schlec h te r ) : 9 . . . ._d I + I I 10 'it>xd I lt:l xf2+ with clear advantage for Black.

58 Rare Systems

A32 6 ed .ie6! 7 d7+ (73)

Or 7 'fi'd I .ixd6 8 e3 'it'f6 gives Black the advantage - ECO; 7 de 'it'xc7 8 'fi'd I .ib4+ 9 .id2 0-0-0 with a strong attack.

7 .ixd7 Black has a big lead in develop

ment . Staker gives 8 a3 (with the idea of preventing . . . .ib4+ or . . . lLlb4) as good for White, but this is a completely wrong assessment, e .g. 8 . . . 'it'f6 9 lLlc3 (9 'tlt'g5 'it'xg5 1 0 lLlxg5 lLld4 wins) 9 . . . .ie6 and now: a) 10 'iVe4 .ic5 I I e3 0-0-0 followed by . .. llhe8 wins. b) 10 'it'g5 'it'xg5 I I lLlxg5 lLld4 WinS. c) 10 'it'dl .ixc4 I I .ig5 't!fe6 with advantage to Black. d) 10 'ffd3 lLlce5 I I 't!t'e4 ( I I lLlxe5'!! 'ihf2+; I I 'it'c2 .ixc4) I I . . . .ic5 1 2 e3 0-0-0 with excellent compensation for the pawn.

I n the 4 1Wd5 variation, too,

Black gets a good game by attacking the exposed white queen.

8 There are four other moves that

occur in practice: 81 4 e3 82 4 lLlc3 83 4 a3 84 4 e6

81 4 e3 lLlxeS

5 lLlf3 lLlbc6 t ransposes to Chapter I .

82 4 lLlc3 lLlxeS

5 e3 followed by 6 lL!f3 transposes to Chapter I or 5 .if4 to Chapter 2.

83 4 a3 lLlxeS

5 b3 g6 6 .ib2 .ig7 7 \!tc2 (otherwise . . . lLldH and . . . .ixb2) 7 . . . 0-0 8 lLlc3 (8 e3 d5! threatening .. . .if5) 8 . . . lL!bc6 9 e3 d6 1 0 .ie2 lie8 with an active position for Black: I I lLlf3 .if5 ! 1 2 e4 lLlxfH 1 3 .ixf3 lLld4 1 4 \!td I ll:lxf3+ 1 5 gf ( 1 5 \!txf3? .ixe4) 1 5 . . . 1Wg5 etc.

84 4 e6

This deserves closer examination. According to ECO Black

eq ual ises after 4 . . . de 5 'tixdX+ 'it>xd8 6 .!Llc3 .ic5 7 e3 .id7 8 .ie2 .!Llf6 9 .!Llf3 .!Llc6 10 0-0 a6 1 1 a3 aS 12 b3 'it>e7 = .

This judgement is not in doubt but the resulting position is possibly not to the taste of adherents of the Budapest Gambit. Those who are dissatisfied will lind an interesting suggestion in the following game.

Game 22 Rasin-lvanov USSR 1979

( 1 d4 .!Llf6 2 c4 e5 3 de .!Llg4) 4 e6 .ib4+

s .id2 'tif6!? 6 ef+ 'it>xn 7 .!Llf3

White cannot capture the bishop on b4: 7 .ixb4'! '@xf2+ 8 '.!td2 4:le3 followed by . . . .!Llxfl +.

7 '@xb2 8 .ixb4 '@xb4+ 9 .!Lld2 lie8

10 e3 '@e7 I I h3 (74)

Black has reached a good position and should now continue 1 1 . . . .!Llf6, e .g. 12 .id3 d6 13 0-0 .!Llbd7 14 4:lb3 (aimed against . . . .!Llc5) 14 . . . a5 1 5 a4 b6 followed by . . . .ib7, . . . 'it>g8 etc. Black sta nds a l ittle better.

Rare �"yl·tems 59

In t h e gam e he continued badly : I I 4:leS? 1 2 .!Llxe5+ 'tWxeS 1 3 .id3

As Black no longer has the i m portant defender. the k n ight on f6, Wh ite has some cham:es on t h t.:

kingside. Black's further play also leaves something to be desired.

1 3 g6 14 0-0 li\c6 IS 'o!lhl �g7 16 libl 4:le7 17 :ilbS dS 18 cd li:hdS 19 f4 ti'd6 20 lile4 'itd8 2 1 ti'a l + {z_] f6 22 :ildl :ilf8 23 g4 .id7 24 :ildS c.!fg8 25 li!xf6+ :ilxf6 26 ilxd7

1-0

5 Fajarowicz Gambit Introduction

1 d4 ll:Jf6 2 c4 eS 3 de ll:Je4!? (75)

75 w

The idea of this gambit is said to have arisen in Leipzig chess circles. Its international premiere took place in a tournament in Wiesbaden 1928, in a game between H .Steiner and Fajarowicz. As we will see in Chapter 7, White fell into an almost lost position <� fter only a few moves. This was the birth of a new opening systt:m.

Before we turn to a systematic examination, we consider the starting position of the fajarowicz Gam bit and make a few general observations.

All the white and black pieces are still in their 'starting-blocks' except the black knight . Does the horse s tand well or badly? The evaluation of the whole variation depends on the answer to this question.

When in general does a piece stand well? According to generally recognised principles of chess strategy, a piece stands well if it a) controls many (important) squares. b) is not easily threatened or driven away.

How does the black knight stand now?

Condition a) is clearly fulfilled. The central square e4 is probably a dream square for the black knight which among other things impedes the natural development ll:lb l -c3. Also the point f2 is threatened in some variations.

As far as condition b) is concerned, the case is not so easy to answer. As we will see shortly, the knight on e4 is indeed easy to attack, but resists l ike an obstinate

donkey kicking out wildly! The radical ejection of the k night by 4 1'3?? ends in material loss for White after 4 . . . Wh4+ 5 g3 li::lxg3. The black knight indeed dies, but has sold its soul dearly!

I t is possible that your opponent will not be at all familiar with the Fajarowicz Gambit and will not absolutely apply the correct strategical considerations. Perhaps his train of thought will run: "I would l ike to attack the knight on e4 with my f-pawn but this is not possible at once because of 1!rh4+. Therefore I'l l simply protect the square g3 first and then play f3." This could result in the following variation:

4 .if4?! li::lc6 5 f3? (indeed 5 . . . 1t'h4+ now loses a piece t o 6 g 3 but . . . ) 5 . . . .ib4+ 6 li::ld2 .ixd2+ 7 ..txd2 Wh4+ and Black wins. Notice the diversion .. . ..tb4+ which is typical of the Fajarowicz Gambit.

The decisive mistake was 5 f3?; after 5 li::lf3 the game transposes into variations with 4 li::lf3 - see

Fajarowicz Gambit Introduction 61

Chapter 8. There a ll the other untheoretical continuations will be reviewed.

So White can only attack the knight on e4 with pieces. To this end there are only two pieces available at the moment : the knight on b I and the queen on d I .

The white knight can in theory be developed on c 3, but after 4 li::lc3?

.ib4 Black immediately has the better of it: 5 .id2 .ixcJ 6 be li::lc6 7 li::lf3 't!re7 or 5 'i!t'c2 liJxcJ 6 be .ia5 7 li::lf3 0-0 8 .ig5 t!t'e8 followed by . . . li::lc6 in both cases regaining the pawn with the better game on account of the weak doubled pawns c3/c4.

There remain the following possibilit ies for White to at tack the k night on e4: Chapter 6: Various queen moves on the d-file ( 4 t!t'd3 ; 4 't!rd4; and 4 't!rd5). Chapter 7: The a ttack by 4 't!t'c2 Chapter 8: The system wit� 4 ltJfJ, as wel l as

less common systems.

6 Fajarowicz 4 !¥-moves on the d-file

d4 ltlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ltle4

White can attack the knight on e4 with various queen moves on the d-file. A 4 1!t'd3 8 4 1!t'd4 c 4 'ird5

A

76 B

4 'ird3 (76)

4 ltlc5 Where should White move the

queen? a) 5 1rd5? ltlc6 and White has lost

a tempo in comparison with C ( 4 1!t'd5). b) 5 't!t'c2? loses a tempo (why not immediately 4 'ti'c2 as in Chapter 7?) . Demonstration Game I i l lustrates how Black can exploit his opponent's hesitation. c) 5 1lt'c3 transposes to a position which will be reviewed in B. It makes no difference if this position is reached by 'ti'd4-c3 or 1!Vd3-c3.

4 't!Vd3 only has significance if the white queen can occupy an active post after 4 . . . lt:lc5. 5 'tlrg3 represents such an attempt and will be examined more closely in Demonstration Game 2.

Demonstration Game 1

( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:le4) 4 'ird3 lt:lc5 5 1!t'c2? lt:lc6 6 lt:lf3 d6 7 .ig5 1!t'd7! (77)

This motif often occurs in the Fajarowicz Gambit. Black avoids the bishop exchange and brings

his queen to f5 where it can control important squares such as d3 and h5.

8 ed 9 e3

1 0 't!rc3

..ixd6 li:lb4 't!t'fS!

This tactic is also standard: I I 1!hb4?'? naturally fails to . . . li:ld3+ and . . . bb4+. Furthermore, Black gets the upper hand after I I 't!rxg7 ltJc2+ 1 2 'it'd I llffi, e .g. 1 3 li:ld4 ltJxd4 followed by . . . li:le6 winning a piece or 1 3 li:lh4 'ifxf2 with a clear advantage.

1 1 ltJa3 0-0 Threatening 1 2 . . . li:le4 winning

a piece. 12 ..ih4 l:le8 13 lldl

The plausible variation 1 3 ..ie2 li:lbd3+ 14 ..ixd3 li:lxd3+ 1 5 'it>e2 li:lf4+ 1 6 'it>fl ll::l xg2 1 7 'it>xg2 t!t'h3+ 1 8 'it>g l 't!rxf3 illustrates White's difficulties.

13 1!fhS 14 ..ie2 ..ig4 I S ..ig3

Fajaro wicz 4 "W/d3/d4/d5 63

Otherwise . . . ..ixf3 wins the bishop on h4.

I S li:le4 16 't!rb3 ..ixg3 1 7 rg ll::l xg3 18 llgl li:lxe2 1 9 'it>xe2 ..ixB+ 20 gf 1!fxh2+ 21 'it>n llad8

0-1 White has no satisfactory defence

to the numerous threats: 22 llxd8 llxd8 followed by .. . lld2 or (after 23 li:lb I ) . . . li:ld3; 22 llg2 t!t'h I + ; 22 lle I lld2; 22 li:lb I li:lc2 etc .

Demonstration game 2

( I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:le4) 4 t!t'd3?! ltJcS s W"g3

Protects the pawn on e5 and i mpedes the development of the bishop on f8 as the pawn on g7 hangs.

S li:le6 6 lLl f3 ltJc6 7 e3 (7H)

Apart from the text White has

64 Fajarowicz 4 .. d3/d4/d5

two other possibilities: a) 7 lLlc3 lLlb4 and because of the threat 8 . . . lLlc2+ White loses the right to castle and his king remains in the cent re, which can hardly be good. b) 7 a3 prevents the sortie 7 . . . lLlb4 but does nothing for development. 7 . . . d6 (here, and in similar positions, accepting the pawn is fatal) 8 ed? ..ixd6 9 't!lg4 (even worse is 9 'irh3 lLled4 1 0 'ifh4 lLlc2+; now 9 . . . 1Lled4 is met by 10 't!le4+) 9 . . . 0-0 10 'tfe4 (what else against 1 0 . . . lLled4) 1 0 . . . lile8 I I 't!lc2 lLled4 1 2 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 3 'ird 1 ..if5 and Black wins.

So White may not play 8 ed but after 8 lLlc3 de 9 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 I 0 11t'xe5 ..id6 he is again hunted.

7 d6 8 ..ie2 de 9 lLlxeS?!

Please don't forget that the task of a demonstration game is to answer the constant question "What happens if . . . " in most practical cases. Naturally White must not take the pawn on e5 but then Black stands better without material disadvantage.

9 lLlb4! 10 lLla3 ..id6!

Threatening 1 1 . . . f6. Therefore: 1 1 f4 .ixeS 1 2 fe lLld3+ 13 .ixd3 .. xd3 14 'tlt'fl o-o

I S -.e2 ltlcS 16 1fxd3

1 6 b4? •c3+ etc. 16 1Llxd3+ 1 7 'ite2 lLlxeS 1 8 h3

Or Black continues actively with . . . .ig4+.

18 .trs 1 9 lld1 lilad8 20 lilxd8 lilxd8 2 1 b3 ..ie4 22 g3 ..if3+ 23 'itfl lild 1

Prevents 24 .ib2 because of . . . lild2+ .

24 1Llc2 24 lLlb5 also doesn't help: 24 . . .

.i.h5 (threatening . . . lLld3+) 25 g4 .i.g6 26 'ite2 lilh I 27 lLlxc7 lLld3 winning a piece.

24 .i.e4 2S lLle1

25 lLld4? lLld3+ and .. . lilxc I . Now White hopes t o free himself with 26 'ite2.

79 w

2S .id3! (79)

0-1

White is in zugzwang. His rook cannot move, nor his bishop (26 .ib2 still fails to . . . lld2+ ). His knight also has no moves : 26 lt:lf3 llfl + and . . . lt:lxf3 ; 26 lt:lg2 llfl mate. Black can sadistically make tempo moves with his king u ntil White runs out of pawn moves .

Summary

After 4 'ti'd3 Black wins a tempo (4 . . . lt:lc5 ) and assumes the initiative. After 5 't!rg3 Black secures the point g7 by 5 . . . lt:le6 and then advances in the centre ( . . . d6).

B 4 1td4

It is clear that the white queen must soon move again as . . . lt:lc6 is in the air. But first the knight must move and again c5 is right.

80 w

4 lt:lc5 5 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 (80)

The white queen now has a number of retreats: a) 6 1rc3 (already mentioned in A) 6 . . . lt:le6 7 a3 (otherwise 7 . . . .i.b4)

Fajarowicz 4 1rd3/d4/d5 65

7 . . . g5 8 h3 .ig7 9 e3 d6 and Black regains the pawn with active play. b) 6 'i!Vd5 d6 7 .ig5 'i!Vd7 8 ed .ixd6 9 lt:lc3 lilb4 10 'i!Vd2 'i!Ve6 ( threatening . . . lt:lbd3+ to be followed by . . . lt:lxf2+ ) I I e3 't!fgo (8 1).

81 w

Black has a clear advan tage. 1 2 . . . lt:lc2+ i s threatened and i f 1 2 llc l lt:lbd3+ etc.

All other queen moves either lose t ime (6 'i!Vd l ), obst ruct his own pieces (6 't!rd2), or expose the queen to further attack ( 6 't!t'g4 d6; 6 'tlrh4 .i.e?; 6 't!t'f4 lile6).

Thus 4 "t!rd4 is unsatisfactory.

c 4 'i!VdS (82)

66 ·Fajarowicz 4 'f/ld3/d4/d5

4 .tb4+! Others that have occurred in

practice: a) 4 . . . lt:lc5? (bad here ! ) 5 lt:lf3 lL!c6 6 .ig5 .ie7 7 't!fxc5 ! .ixg5 8 lt:lc3 b6 9 Wd5 .ib7 10 e6! (double attack on the bishop on g5) 10 . . . f6 1 1 lt:lxg5 fg 1 2 Wxd7+ 't!fxd7 1 3 ed+ 'i!txd7 1 4 0-0-0+ and White won, Olsen-Martinsen, corres 1945.

An important hint: after 4 't!fd3 and 4 t!t'd4, 4 . . . lt:lc5 is the best move. After 4 Wd5, on the other hand, it is wrong! There are only a few variations where you can go seriously astray - it's in your own interest to make the effort to remember them! b) 4 . . . f5 5 ef lt:lxf6 6 't!t'e5+? .ie7 7 .ig5 lt:lc6 !l 't!t'e3 0-0 9 lt:lc3'! lt:lg4 1 0 .ixe7 lt:lxe7 1 1 't!tg3 lL!xf2 0- 1 , Camara-Flores, Sao Paolo 1 937. Camara didn't have his best day.

After 4 . . . f5 theoreticians regard 5 lt:ld2 c6 6 't!td3 d5 7 ed 't!t'a5 8 a3 .ixd6 as equal.

After 4 ... .ib4+ White now has: CI 5 .id2 C2 5 lt:ld2

C I 5 .id2 6 lt:lxd2 7 lt:lgf3 8 0-0-0 9 llxd2

lL!xd2 lt:lc6 "t!te7 ..txd2+

After 9 't!txd2 or 9 lL!xd2 Black

equalises comfortably with 9 . . . lt:lxe5.

The column game is BlumichFajarowicz, match 1 930. Black could now have had a good game with 9 . . . lt:lb4 winning the pawn on a2 or, after 10 't!Va5 b6 I I ti'a4 lt:lc6, with good play against the pawn on e5; the white queen stands a little offside.

C2 5 lt:ld2 lt:lc5 6 a3

Or 6 lt:lgf3 0-0 7 g3 b6! and if 8 't!Vxa8 then 8 . . . .ib7 9 't!t'xa7 lt:lc6 winning the queen .

83 w

6 .ixd2+ 7 .ixd2 b6!! (83)

Another standard combinat ion in the Fajarowicz Gambit (suggested by J .Staker). The idea is to trap the queen after 8 't!t'xa8 .ib7 9 't!t'xa7 lt:lc6. Notice that this combination is only made possible by the move a3, which takes a retreat square from the white queen. Therefore Black delays . . . b6 until a3 is

played. In the diagram Black threatens

a k n ight fork with 8 . . . i.b7 9 \!rd4 lDb3.

8 't!rf3 9 \!rg3

10 i.h6

i.b7 0-0

Or I 0 llJf3 llJe4 1 1 \!rf4 lDxd2 1 2 \!rxd2 llJc6 1 3 e3 lie8 1 4 \!rc3 \!re7 followed by 1 5 . . . llJxe5 and Black stands well (the bishop on b7 is more active than its opposite number).

10 llJe6 I I llJf3 lDc6 1 2 i.d2

After 1 2 e3 f6 the bishop on h6 gets into difficulties ( . . . <t>h8).

1 2 llJcd4 1 3 llJxd4 lDxd4

Fajarowicz 4 'f/d3/d4/d5 6 7

14 \!rd3 l.Uc6 15 i.c3 \!re7

Black stands well. He regains the pawn with . . . lD xe5 and has well-placed pieces (bishop on b7, kn ight on e5). The attempt to maintain the extra pawn by 16 f4 or 16 \!rd5 looks very risky, as Black then plays 1 6 . . . I!ad8 and follows with . . . d6 gaining a strong initia tive.

Summary

Excursions of the white queen along the d-file bring nothing for White. On d3 it is molested by . . . llJc5, o n d4 by . . . lDc6. d 5 i s also no place for the lady, for the black bishop soon appears on b7 with an unmistakeable invitation to move.

7 Fajarowicz 4 'ir'c2

d4 ltJf6 2 c4 eS 3 de ltJe4 4 Wc2 (84)

84 B

In Chapter 6 we saw various queen moves on the d-file. Black was able to attack the exposed queen with one of his knights and thus gain a lead in development and the better game. 4 'tlrc2 also attacks the 'Fajarowicz knight' but this t ime from a safer distance. I t is 4 Wc2 that gives Black the most problems to solve .

The material is divided up as follows: A 4 . . . dS 5 various 8 4 . . . dS 5 ed i.fS 6 not ltJc3 C 4 . . . dS 5 ed .US 6 ltJc3 D 4 . . . ..ib4+

A 4 dS (85)

85

s ltJf3? This tame move was played in

Game 23. The correct 5 ed will be examined in the next sections. Other possibilities are: a) S e3?! ltJc6 6 ltJf3 ..if5 7 'tlrd I de 8 'tlrxd8+ lilxd8 9 ..ixc4 ..ib4+ 1 0 'it>e2 lt:la5 with advantage to Black in Rubinstein-Beeker, Vienna 1932 ( I I .id37 lilxd3 1 2 'it>xd3 ltJxf2+ etc; I I ..ib3 ltJxb3 1 2 ab ltJcS followed by . . . .id3+; I I ..ib5+ c6 1 2 .ta4 ltJc5 followed by . . . ..id3+). b) S cd 't!rxd5 6 ltJd2 i.b4 7 ltJgf3 ltJc6 8 a3 ..ixd2+ 9 ..ixd2 (9 ltJxd2? .if5) 9 . . . ltJxd2 10 1hd2 1hd2+ I I lt:lxd2 (or I I 'it>xd2 .ig4 followed

by . . . 0-0-0 and . . . lihe8) 1 1 . . . lt:lxe5 with equality. Black's best set-up is . . . ..te6, . . . 0-0-0 and . . . lihe8.

Game 23 Mititelu-Seineanu

Romania 1955

(J d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:le4 4 't!tc2 d5) s lt:lf3? . ..trs

As we will see in B, the bishop on f5 and the queen on c2 are natural enemies. On account of the threat . . . lt:lg3 the stronger one must move away.

6 't!ta4+ lt:lc6 7 ..te3

The natural 7 e3 leads to a very good game for Black after 7 . . . lt:lc5 8 \ltd I (else the white queen is lost: M 'irb5?? a6; 8 't!ta3'!! lt:ld3+ ! ) 8 . . . lt:lb4 9 lt:la3 c6! followed b y 1 0 . . . 't!ta5 and/or . . . lt:lbd3. Therefore White decides to control the square c5, but also without any luck .

7 ..tb4+ 8 lt:lbd2 d4! 9 ..tf4

Naturally 9 lt:lxd4 fails to 9 . . . ..txd2+.

9 g5 1 0 a3

If 10 ..tg3 g4 and one of the knights is lost.

1 0 1 1 't!tdl 1 2 1 3

ab licl

lt:lc5! gf

lt:lxb4 d3! (86)

H6 w

Fajarowicz 4 1fcl 69

White's position is a picture of misery . Unfortunately the rest of this game is not extant . It is on ly known that Black won. White wil l lose at least the exchange with a miserable position .

Summary

The sortie . . . ..tf5 which threatens the whi te queen or creates discovered threats must be taken seriously. White has no time for slack moves. The knight on e4 must be deprived of protection.

B 5 ed ..trs rs 7)

The games in the following

70 Fajarowicz 4 1Wc2

three sections i l lustrate the commonly played moves. 6 ltJc3! is in C. B1 6 de? B2 6 1!t'a4+? B3 6 1!rb3?

B 1 6 de?

Game 24 Rossner-Kipke

Berlin 1933

( I d4 ltJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ltJe4 4 tfc2 d5 5 ed .i.f5)

6 ck? White's overlarge appetite will

not do him any good. 6 1txc7 7 trb3 ltJc6 8 ltJ f3 0-0-0 9 e3 liJcS

White is already lost. If 10 1!rc3 there follows 10 . . . ltJb4 I I ltJa3 ltJe4 1 2 't!lb3 t!t'a5 1 3 �e2 ( 1 3 .i.d2 ltJxd2 14 ltJxd2 ltJc2+) 13 . . . ltJc5 14 tfc3 .i.d3+ with deadly discoveries. So he makes a last try:

10 1!t'a3!? (88)

Normally 1!t'a3 would be bad on account of the standard combination ... ltJd3+ and . . . .i.xa3. Here, by way of exception, this combination is inadequate: 10 . . . liJd3+ I I .i.xd3 .i.xa3 1 2 .i.xf5+ lttb8 1 3 ltJxa3 and White would have 'half the board' for the queen.

However, Black can realise his advantage in a different way.

10 ltJb4! Now naturally I I t!t'xb4'n liJd3+

1 2 .i.xd3 .txb4+ would be completely hopeless. I I ltJd4 lhd4 and 1 2 ... ltJc2+ is also won for Black .

1 1 t!t'xa7 0-1

ltJc2+

There could follow 1 2 ltte2 .i.d3+ 1 3 lttd l ( 1 3 �d2 lbe4+) 1 3 . . . ltJxa I etc.

A nother horrible example on the same theme:

Game 25 Krastev-Donev Bulgaria / 954

( 1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ltJe4 4 1!t'c2 d5 5 ed .i.f5)

6 de? 7 1!t'a4+ 8 ltJf3

1!t'xc7 ltJc6 0-0-0

Again threatening . . . lbc5 and . . . ltJb4. White now wants to protect b4 . . .

9 .td2 t!t'b6 . . . but comes up against two nasty threats: . . . 11fxb2 winning a rook

and . . . 't!rxf2+. He chose: 10 't!rb3 1!hf1+ 1 1 �1 ..tb4 1 2 �c1

Or 1 2 .!t:lc3 ..txc3 1 3 be llxd2+! 14 .!i:lxd2 lld8 etc.

12 13 .!t:lbxd2 14 15

.!t:lxd2 1!t'd1

.!i:lxd2 llxd2! 't!rel + ..txd2 mate

A rare and pretty mate.

Summary

6 de? increases Black's al ready dangerous initiative. Furthermore, it opens the d-file, but only for the entry of the black rook! So: hands off the pawn on c7!

B2 6 1!t'a4+

Game 26 H .Steiner-Fajarowicz

Wiesbaden 1928

( I d4 .!t:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de .!t:le4 4 't!rc2 d5 5 ed ..tf5)

H'J B

6 1!t'a4+ ( 89)

Fajarowicz 4 Wc2 7 I

White's queen voluntarily leaves the line of fire of the bishop on f5.

6 .!i:lc6 7 .!i:lf3

7 de leads to positions si milar to those in games 2 and 3.

7 ..txd6 8 a3

Directed against . . . .!t:lc5 followed by . . . .!t:lb4 threatening c2.

8 't!rf6 9 g3

White does not want to weaken the square d3 (for which, as we have just seen, the black knight sometimes aims) and prepares to build a safe haven for his king (g3, i.g2, 0-0). However, he does not manage to castle.

9 0-0-0 1 0 .!t:lbd2

If immediately 10 ..tg2, then 1 0

. . . .!t:lc5 I I 't!rd I ..txg3. Therefore White doses the d-file.

10 .!i:lcS I I 't!rd I 1 2 ..tg2 1 3 e3

14 .!t:lxeS

llhe8 ..td3!

..teS

It is easy to say that Wh ite should have done something else, but what?

14 IS f4

.!t:lxeS i.xc4! (90)

As far as t h e opening is �:oncerncd, the world premiere of the Fajarowi�:z Gambit has completely succeeded. Black has a winn ing

72 Fajarowicz: 4 'tiel

90 w

posit ion. 1 6 fe?? is out of the question because of 16 . . . ll:ld3+ and 1 7 . . . �f2 mate and after 1 6 �fl �ed3+ 1 7 .i.xd3 ll:lxd3+ 1 8 �e2 or 1 8 �fl White loses his queen to 1 8 . . . ll:lxb2+.

And so, 0- 1 '! - Not at all ! 16 �f2

Here Black could have driven home the coffin nail immediately: 16 . . . ll:led3+ 1 7 �g l (or 1 7 �0 't!tc6+ 1 8 e4 llxe4 etc) 1 7 ... lhe3 1 8 ll:lf3 lle l + ! ( 19 ll:lxe l 1td4+ and mates; 19 't!he I ll:lxe I etc).

1 6 .te6? 1 7 h3! ll:lb3 1 8 �gl ll:lxa l 1 9 fe �xeS 20 �f3 .i.dS 2 1 e4 .i.c6 22 �h2 ll:lc2 23 'ftxf7 lU8?!

Simpler was 23 . . . lbe3 followed by 24 . . . ll:lxg2 or, if 24 .tO, 24 . . . lhd 2 ! 2 5 .ixd2 ttxb2 etc.

24 'i!Vb3 ll:ld4 25 �c3 l:tf2

26 llel lldfl 27 �· 'tlf6 28 :an llxfl+ 29 ll:lxn (91)

Black is still winning, for example after 29 . . . .ixe4! , but now, unbelievably, he played:

29 �xn +?? Did Fajarowicz see some sort of

mating net? Unfortunately we can no longer ask him.

30 .i.xn J::txn+ 31 �g2

1 -0? Black was probably completely

unnerved by his blunder for he could still fight on with 3 1 . . . ll:le2 32 tte3 J::txc I 33 'tlxe2 b5! (with the idea .. . J::tc4, followed by . . . �b7) and White i s still far from winning.

The curious end to this game does not alter the fact that the variation in this section is advantageous for Black. The white queen finds no peace on a4 as it is chased by . . . li:lc5. The same applies t o the next game, where she moves to b3.

83 6 1!t'b3

Game 27 Gilfer-Richter

Munich OJ 1 936

( I d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLle4 4 1!t'c2 d5 5 cd �f5)

6 'i!t'b3 �xd6 7 lLld2

7 'ti'xb7? 0-0 8 'ti'xa8?? ends in disaster: 8 . . . i.b4+ 9 �d2 �xd2+ 10 �d l lLlxf2 mate.

7 0-0 8 1!t'xb7?

Relatively better was 8 lLlgf3 though Black sti l l has a very active game after 8 . . . lLlc5 9 irc3 lLlc6 10 a3 a5 I I e3 lieS 12 i.e2 i.e7! followed by . . . i.f6 or 9 tt'd I lbc6 10 a3 a5 I I e3 lt:ld3+. Now, however, White's ship goes under very quickly.

8 i.cS! 9 e3

Forced. The knight on e4 is naturally taboo: 9 lt:lxe4 i.xe4 1 0 'ti'xe4?? i.b4+ and mates. 9 irxa8 i.xf2+ I 0 �d I i.e3 I I lbgf3 lt:lf2+ 1 2 �e I i.e4 results in a very original trapping of the queen.

9 ire7! (92) Eying the point e3, e .g.

a ) 10 irxa8 lt:lxd2 ( threatening . . . i.e4) I I f3 irxe3+ etc. b) 10 lt:lgO lt:lxf2! I I �xf2 irxe3+ 12 �g3 i.d6+ 13 �h4 irh6 mate.

Therefore the contorted text

Fajarowicz 4 'iic2 73

move - the point e3 must be protected. White's position is sti l l beyond salvation. He defin itely overstepped the mark with 7 'ti'xb7. The rest is easily comprehensible .

I 0 lt:ldf3 �b4+ I I i.d2 lt:lxd2 1 2 lt:lxd2 �e4

1 3 'ti'bS l:ld8 14 0-0-0 1!t'd6 I S lt:lgO i.xf3 16 gf i.xd2+ 1 7 �bl lt:lc6 18 cS 1!t'g6+ 19 e4 l:lab8 20 1!t'c4 't!tf6 2 1 b3 lt:laS 0-1 .

I f 2 2 1!t'c2 1!t'xf3 2 3 l:lg I lt:lxb3 etc.

Summary

I f the white queen moves from c2, it goes out of the frying pan into the fire . The " Fajarowicz knight" on e4 finds a fine square on c5 with gain of tempo.

Is the source of the trouble to be found in 4 1!t'c2? As we will see in C, this is not the case. Only the moves 6 trb3 and ira4 are bad . White has a much stronger continuation at his sixth move.

74 Fajarowicz 4 1i'c2

c 4 d5 5 ed .if5 6 lt:Jc3 ! (93)

In this way the strength of the knight discovery is considerably reduced. With lt:Jc3 White once again covers the square e4 so that moves of the black knight can be answered by e4. The following illustrative game acquaints us with the refinements of this variation.

Game 28 Kottnauer-Martin

CzechoJ/ovakia v. France 1946

( I d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:Je4 4 1i'c2 d5 5 ed .if5)

6 lt:Jc3! lt:Jxd6 Black has no other moves:

a) 6 . . . lt:Jg3 7 11ra4+ .i.d7 8 de 'ihc7 9 lt:Jb5! . b) 6 . . . lt:Jxl1? 7 'tlfxf5 lt:Jxh l H .ig5 c) 6 . . . lt:Jxc3 7 11rxf5 ltJa4 8 1lrb5+ 1i'd7 9 1Wxb7 with a winning position for White in all cases.

7 c4! lLlxc4 (94) Black has scarcely any choice: 7

. . . 1We7 8 i.d3 lt:Jc6 9 lt:lge2 i.g6 (9 . . . lt:Jb4?'! 10 't!¥a4+) 1 0 . lt:Jd5 with a clear advantage to White.

Before we look at the actual course of the game, we must without fai l become familiar with the important alternative 8 lt:Jxe4. I n this variation Black must play for a long time with a piece less. Admit tedly, he has a powerful initiative for it. In short, it is playing with fire - for both players. However, players of the Fajarowicz Gambit may not avoid risks.

Acceptance of the piece sacrifice - 8 . . . i.b4+ 9 'it>e2 (9 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 10 1i'xd2 i.xe4 I I 'ifxd8+ 'it>xd8 1 2 0-0-0+ 'it>c8 with equality) 9 . . .

lt:Jc6 10 .ie3 1i'e7 II f3 0-0-0 (95) - is, according to analysis by I M Nikola Minev in ECO, better for Black. Up to now nobody has shown the desire to doubt this opinion and play the position with the white pieces, so we must forgo

practical examples.

Some possibilities: a) 12 a3 lld2+ 1 3 .ixd2 liJd4+ 14 lttf2 liJxc2 1 5 .ixb4 liJxb4 16 ab 1!rxb4 is good for Black as White's ki ngside is still undeveloped . b) 1 2 liJd6+ llxd6 1 3 1!rxf5+ lle6! 14 'it>f2 g6 1 5 1!rh3 ( 1 5 1!rd3 llxe3 followed by . . . .ic5) 15 . . . f5 1 6 .if4 ll e I wins ( 1 7 llxe I 1!rxe I mate; 1 7 .ic l lhfl + ! 1 8 'it>xfl'!? 1!re l mate). c) 12 'it>fl llhe8 and now: c l ) 13 liJd6+ llxd6 14 1!rxf5+ 'it>b!l 1 5 1!rf4 ( 1 5 .if4 't!f"e l +! ! 1 6 llxe l .ixe l mate) 1 5 . . . l:U6 1 6 1!rg5 h6 and wins as c3 can no longer be defended. c2) 13 .id3 .ig6 (threatening . . . f5 ) 1 4 g4 (White can hardly be enthusiastic about 14 a3 f5 1 5 ab liJxb4 16 1!t'a4 liJxd3+ 17 'it>fl fe 18 't!rxa 7 el) 1 4 . . . liJe5 1 5 lld I 1!t'h4+ 16 'it>g2 liJxg4 1 7 fg 1hg4+ I g 'it'll, ( I ll liJg3 lihe3) I ll . . . i.xe4 19 .ixe4 1!t'xd I with advantage to Black .

Fajarowicz 4 Wc2 75

/\ n ex haustive ana lys is i s not feasible for the number of possible variations is very great . Black's conduct of the attack is associated in many cases with . . . lie!!, . . . .ig6 and . . . f5.

Experience shows that in a practical game the attacker has bet ter chances than the defender. For one thing the art of defence is significantly more difficult to learn than that of attack, for another mistakes a re much more likely to be commi tted by the defender; hc must pay heed to a whole host of threats while the attacker (after making his select ion from the possible variations) can concentrate on only one continuation . Also such factors as use of energy, use of time and nervousness come into play and in all cases the defender is at a disadvantage.

This explains the large number of attacking victorics which proved to be not completely correct in analysis, but which succeeded at the board.

In short, given a ration of courage and good tactical abality , the variation given above offers Black good practical prospects - a verdict with which ECO agrees.

After this long diversion we return to our illustrative ga me (sec diagram 94), in which Kottnaucr chose a continuation which was significantly more unpleasant for

76 Fajarowicz 4 'tic2

Black:

\IIi 8

8 9

10

.id3! .ixf5 ll:if3 (96)

ll:ixf2 ll:ixh1

This position is of decisive importance for the fate of the variation 4 'tic2 d5. Before we devote ourselves to its analysis, we will look at the course of our illustrative game:

10 i.c5? 1 1 ll:ie4 'tlt'e7 1 2 i.g5 f6

1 2 . . . .ib4+ 1 3 c;&e2 f6 1 4 i.e3 wins - Reuben Fine.

13 0-0-0 An ingenious piece sacrifice that

Black can hardly accept: 1 3 . . . fg 1 4 ll:ixc5 1!t'xc5 1 5 11re4+ 'tlt'e7 1 6 'tixb7 0-0 1 7 11rxa8 ll:if2 1 8 'tlt'd5+ c;&h8 19 lie I with great advantage to White.

1 3 ll:ia6 14 1ld7 (97)

The board is in flames! White is temporarily the exchange and a pawn down and his bishop on g5 is

hanging, but his entire army is ideally placed for attack. Moreover, the knight on h I is trapped.

In the game Black sacrifices his queen. The alternative is 1 4 . . . 'tlt'f8 1 5 11re2! i.e7 16 ll:ie5! ! and now: a) 16 . . . fg 1 7 1!t'h5+ g6 18 i.xg6+ hg 1 9 1Wxg6+ 11rt7 20 'tht7 mate. b) 16 . . . g6 1 7 ll:ixf6+ i.xf6 1 8 ll:ixg6+ etc. c) 16 ... fe 1 7 lixe7+ 'tixe7 1 8 i.xe7 c;&xe7 1 9 We i ! 1lhf8 20 i.h3 and 21 9xh l .

Thus 1 4 . . . trf8 would also not save Black. The rest is understandable without much comment.

14 'tltxd7 15 .txd7+ c;&xd7 16 ll:ixc5+ ll:i xc5 1 7 'tltf5+ ll:ie6 18 ll:id4 liae8 19 1lrd5+ c;&c8 20 ll:ixe6 fg 21 ll:ic5 lie1 +

After 2 1 . . . lih f8 Black gets mated: 22 11rxb7+ c;&d8 23 1td5+ c;&e7 (23 . . . c;&c8 24 'tlt'a8 mate) 24

11re6+ �d8 25 1lrd7 mate. 22 �d2 �he8 23 1fxb7+ �d8 24 Wb8+ �e7 25 11rxe8+ 1 -0

If 25 . . . �xe8 26 �xe I followed by �fl -g l xh l etc.

An impressive victory by White! Nevertheless, we don't want to forget that Black blundered on his l Oth move, so we return to the critical position . . . ( I d4 tLld6 2 c4 e5 3 de tLle4 4 'i!fc2 d5 5 ed .if5 6 tLlc3 tLlxc6 7 e4 tLlxe4 8 .id3 tLlxf2 9 .ixf5 tLlxh I )

1 0 tLlf3 . . . and confirm that 1 0 . . . .id6? I I tLle4 .ixh2 (with the idea 1 2 tLlxh2 'irh4+) 1 2 .ig5! gives White the advantage.

We make some deliberations however:

If White wants to castle he must play .td2 and 0-0-0. Then the knight on h i can escape via f2.

Naturally White can play .te3 and �e2 followed by �xh I . I n this case the knight o n h I is not saved, but at what price; the white king will hardly find peace in the middle of the board. Black will therefore quickly put his heavy pieces on the e-file.

White has two minor pieces (after he has won the knight on h I ); B lack has a rook and a pawn. Accordingly Black must try to

Fajarowicz 4 11rc2 77

take central outposts from the enemy pieces, to which purpose he places his el'tra pawns (see later JO. . . g6, fj . . . . c6, j! .. . . f5 ) . The black rooks must occupy the two open central files.

So we construct a demonstration game, not forgetting that the course of this game is in no way forced. but is only meant to illustrate ideas and plans.

Demonstration Game 3

( I d4 liJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de tLle4 4 'i!t'c2 d5 5 cd i:.f5 6 tLlc3 tLlxd6 7 e4 tLlxe4 8 .id3 lt:Jxf2 9 .ixf5 Coxh I 1 0 �f3 g6)

Black begins the plan of reducing outposts in the centre.

I I .ie4 (98) I I .ig5? .ie7 1 2 .ixe7 't!txc7+

1 3 .ic4 f5 wins ; I I 1Wc4+? .ie7 1 2 .ih3 0-0 and 1 3 . . . lle8; I I i:.dJ li:\c6 1 2 a3 'i!fe7+ 1 3 'i!fe2 0-0-0 1 4 't!rxe7 .ixe7 1 5 �e2 �he!! with an attack.

I I c6

78 Fajarowicz 4 1!t'c2

The important square d5 is made unavailable to the white pieces.

12 .ie3 Again 1 2 .ig5 .ie7 1 3 .ixe7

'ffxe7 plays into Black's hands; he will bring his heavy pieces to the e-file.

12 fS 13 .id3 1!t'e7 14 'ffe2

14 �d2 ll'la6 followed by . . . ��0 with an attack on the d-file.

14 ll'la6 IS 0-0-0 0-0-0 16 l:lxhl

16 .ixa7? .ih6+ 17 �b l ._xe2 1 8 ll'lxe2 c5! 19 .ib6 ll'lfl! and wins.

16 lt:lb4 17 .ibl .ig7 18 .tgS (99)

1 8 a3 .ixc3 19 be l0a6 with the threats 20 . . . f4 and 20 . . . Wxa3+; if 18 ._f2 ll'ld3+ 19 .ixd3 l:lxd3 with the attack; or 18 l:i:e l l:lhe8 and Black has splendid development.

18 ._xe2

19 ll'lxe2 l:i:de8 20 lt:led4 cS 21 ll'lbS l:le2 22 .id2

22 li:lc3? .ixc3 23 be ll'lxa2+. 22 lld8 23 l0xa7+

23 l0c3 ll xg2; or 23 g3 llfl. 23 �b8 24 ll'lbS l hg2 25 .tf4+ �a8 26 .tes

Nothing good comes from 26 li:lc7+ �a7 27 li:lb5+.

26 .ixeS 27 ll'lxeS l:i:dd2 28 a3 (100/

Or 28 h4 l:i: xb2 29 h5 li:lxa2+ 30 .txa2 l:i: xa2 3 1 �b l l:i:gb2+ 32 �c l l:i:h2! .

28 ll'lc6 29 ll'lxc6 be 30 ll'lc3 l hb2 31 h4 l:lb3 32 ll'ld l hS 33 a4 llb4 34 .tc2 lixc4

35 ll:)e3 36 ll:)xc2 37 Jilel

Jilgxc2+ lixa4

37 ll:)e3?? lla l + ; 37 lig l lig4 ! . 37 lixh4 38 lile6 lig4 39 lhc6 h4 40 ll:)e3

40 llxc5 h3 4 1 lic3 h2 42 Jilh3 lilg I+ etc.

40 h3! 41 ll:)xg4 fg 42 lixg6 h2 43 lih6 g3 44 ot>d2 g2

0-1

Summary

This pretty demonstration game should not disguise the fact that there are problems to be solved in the variation with 6 ll:)c3 . On the other hand Black has many active counterchances in the plan with lo • . . a6·

Only tournament practice can give a definitive answer with regard to the playability of this variation. A player who is familiar with the particularities of this variation can, however, happily employ it in his games.

D

Fajarowicz 4 We 2 79

101 w

Those who find the resulting sacrificial dance too hot can put their trust in an idea of the master Hermann Steiner.

After the bishop check 5 �d2 is obviously harmless: 5 . . . ll:)xd2 6 ll:)xd2 et:lc6 7 et:Jf3 (7 f4? here and in similar positions is not good: 7 . . . d6 ll cd irxd6 9 e3 0-0 1 0 ll:)f3 lle8 I I '.t>f2 �c5 1 2 lie l 1Wxf41 etc or K et:lf3 de followed by 9 . . . 1We7) 7 . . . 1We7 and Black rega ins his pawn (8 1We4 d6! ) and has the bet ter ga me on account of his bishop pair. We th erefore consider: Dl 5 lbd2 02 5 lbc3!

Dl 5 lbd2 d5

White has three plausible move� : a) 6 cd transposes to A of Chapter 7.

4 �b4+ ( 101) We saw there that the situation i� The four previous sections have

shown the many attacking possibilities in the variation 4 1Wc2 d5.

sati�factory for B lack . b) 6 e3 - sec game 29. c) 6 ed - see ga mes 30-32.

80 Fajarowicz 4 Wc2

Game 29 Timet-Meyer Zagreb 1 953

( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:le4 4 1ic2 i.b4+)

/02 B

5 lt:ld2 d5 6 7 8 9

e3 i.d3 g3

lt:lgf3

.tr5 tig5! lt:ld7 1rg4 (102)

With the threat . . . 't!t'xf3 ! . This threat would be better executed by 9 . . . 't!t'h5 - see analysis at the end of the game.

10 0-0 i.xd2 11 lt:lxd2 lt:lxd2 1 2 i.xf5

Here the black queen is attacked which it would not be after 9 . . . ..,5.

1 2 1 3 1 4 15 16 17

'i!lh1 i.xd7+ 'i!lg2 gh

'i!lh1

lt:lf3+ 't!t'h5 'i!lxd7 lt:lh4+ \ig4+ 1rf3+

18 'i!lg1 1rg4+ •!z-•/z

From the diagram Black could play better and obtain a clear advantage.

9 1 0 0-0 1 1 lt:lxd2

tih5! .txd2 ll::!xe5

There is now the deadly threat of 13 . . . 1rh3 and 14 . . . lt:lf3+ or 14 . . . lt:lg4. 1 3 lt:lxe4 fails to 1 3 . . . lt:lf3+ followed by 1 4 . . . .th3+ and 1 5 . . . .txfl and after 1 3 h 4 0-0-0 Black threatens 14 . . . llxd2! followed by . . . lt:lf3+ and . . . 't!rg4 with a mating attack . 1 3 't!ra4+ c6 only removes the queen from the kingside .

1 3 f4 ef 14 e4 i.h3 t 5 liln o-o-o 16 lt:lfl lt:ld3

and Black wins. 1 7 lild2?? 't!rc5+; 1 7 i.e3 lt:lxf2 with a decisive rna-

terial advantage. The passive 6 e3 brought White

no luck. In the following illustrative games several players tried 6 cd.

6 ed i.fS ( /04)

This is the start ing position of tht: following three in tert:sting, if not mistake-free, games. The theoretical cont inuation runs:

7 a3 i.xd2+

8 i.xd2 1!fxd6

Black has abundant compensat ion for the sacrificed pawn, e.g. 9 't!kc l (avoiding the discovery 0 0 0

lLlg3) 9 0 0 0 lLlc6 1 0 e 3 (after I 0 i.f4 't!ke7 I I e3 0-0-0 1 2 lLlf3 lLla5 threatening o o • l!Jb3 Black stands clearly better) 10 0 0 0 0-0-0 I I i.e2 g5 with a very active game. To be considered is :

9 g4!? With the idea 9 0 0 0 i,g6 1 0 i.g2!

lLlg3 I I 't!ka4+ etc. 9 't!kxd2+

9 0 0 . l!Jxd2? 10 •xf5 followed by 't!ke4+.

10 •xd2 lLlxd2

Fajarowicz 4 '@c2 81

C h a n ces a rc l e v e l . The game could continue I I gf lLlxc4 1 2 llc l lLldo 13 f6 ( 1 3 1i xc7 llJC6 1 4 i.g2 '.!/dX i� gooJ for 8bck ) 13 . . . c6 1 4 fg Il.gK I � d li ,d7 l t. li ic2 0-0-0 17 �hJ li xg 7 I K tL:lgJ and the result i s st i l l o pe n .

I n t h e fo l l o w i n g ga mes we w i l l sec t hat W h i t e docs better to p l a y t h e a bove t heo ret ica l vana t inn a �

divergences h a v e not proved good:

G ame 30

Antainen-� ieminen

Finnish Currt'.\ Ch 1 9 73

( I d4 ttl ft. 2 c4 e5 3 de lLlc4 4 'iWc2 i.b4+ 5 lLld2 d 5 )

6 ed .IdS

7 de 'iWxc7

8 1!fa4+ �c6

9 lLlf3 0-0-0

1 0 a3 ..txdH

I I i.xd2 lLlxd2

1 2 lLlxd2 llxd2!

13 �xd2 'tireS! (105)

This posit ion had occurred in M i.iss-Reinhardt, corres 1935. After

82 Fajarowicz 4 1Wc2

14 >!;>e 1 �xb2 1 5 lld I i.c2 Black won without trou ble.

Also aftc:r 14 -;!¥b5 lld8+ 1 5 'it>e l li:ld4! fol lowed by 1 6 . . . li:lc2 ( mate) or I§ ..t>� I �14+ 1 7 c3 Wxf2 Black wins in a kw moves.

1 4 'i!;'b3 lld8+ IS �c l li:la5 16 't!t'f3 i.e4 1 7 'i!Vc3(?)

1 7 �h3+ \t)b8 would have prolonged the suffering a l itt le .

1 7 �d6 0-1

Mate by 18 . . . �d l or 1 8 b4 �d I + 1 9 '<t'b2 �c2 can only be prevented by 1 8 �d3 but after 1 8 . . . i.xd3 one would do bet ter to save postage on correspondence cards.

Game 31 Baseau-Meewes

corres 1971

( I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:le4 4 1!t'c2 i.b4+ 5 li:ld2 d5)

6 ed .trs

7 't¥b3 li:le6 8 de

On 8 e3 can follow 8 . . . 1hd6 9 li:lf3 0-0-0 I 0 1!t'd I ll:le5 I I ll:lxe5 ll:lxd2 and wins.

8 1Wxe7 9 llJ 1'3 0-0-0

1 0 e3 g5 To drive away the knight on f3,

after which the knight on d2 falls. I I h3 h5 renews the threat . . . g4;

I I a3 'i!t'a5 already wins the knight on d2 ( 1 2 �d I g4).

1 1 li:ld4 12 1 3

ed Wd1

0-1

llxd4! tt:lxd4 tif4!

An analysis of the above position is naturally superfluous, but the mates which arise, even after a desperate queen sacrifice, are really not commonplace:

14 f3 �e3+ 1 5 1We2

Otherwise . . . �f2 mate. 15 tt:le2+ 16 <Zld1 tt:lf2+ 17 't!hf2 �xf2

1 8 i.e2 tt:le3 mate; 1 8 tt:le4 lld8+ 19 i.d2 tt:le3+ 20 'it>c l �e l + ! 2 1 i.xe l Ild l mate. White's position may well approach a chess player's nightmare.

Game 32 Laghk�a-Contendini

Leipzig 0/ 1960

( I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:le4 4 't!t'c2 i.b4+ 5 tt:ld2 d5)

6 ed i.f5 7 �a4+ ll:le6 8 a3 ll:le5! 9 de?

White also stands very mediocrely after 9 1!t'd I tt:ld4 I 0 e4 i.xd2+ I I i.xd2 i.xe4 but now follows a short procedure:

9 1!t'e7! Another standard trap of the

diabolical Mr Fajarowicz! 10 'tidl lt:ld3 mate

This t rap should impress itself on everyone - and be avoided with White if possible!

D2 5 lt:lc3 dS 6 ed

6 cd 'tixd5 7 i.d2 i.xc3 8 i.xc3 lt:lxc3 9 1!t'xc3 lt:lc6 10 lt:lf3 0-0 I I e3 lle8 etc with equality.

6 .trs (J07J

7 i.d2 a) 7 de is, as in previous variations, not adequate: 7 . . . 1!t'xc7 8 i.d2

Fajarowicz 4 1Wc 2 83

�xd 9 �xd lt:lg�1 10 c4 �xc4 I I �d3 i.xd3 1 2 �xd3 lt:lxh I 1 3 i.xg7 :SgH 14 't!¥xh7 'tie7+ 1 5 lt:le2 II xg7 16 't!¥xg7 lt:ld7 followed by 17 . . . 0-0-0. I n th is complicated position Black's chances are to be preferred. b) 7 �b3 occurred in DeutgcnSch mid, Cel ie 1 948: 7 . . . lt:lco H lt:lf3 'tixdo 9 cJ 0-0-0 10 i.e2 't!¥g6 I I lt:lh4 't!¥f6 1 2 lt:lxf5 'tixf5 1 3 0-0 (or 1 3 f3 , 1 3 f4 , 1 3 i.f3 ) 1 3 . . . lt:lc5' 0- 1 , because the queen is t rapped .

7 lt:lxd6 8 e4

An important alternative is !:! 't!¥b3 lt:lc6 9 e3 't!fe7 10 lt:Jf3 ( 1 0 a3'! lt:ld4 ! ) 10 . . . 0-0-0 and now: a) I I lt:ld5 i,xd2+ 12 lt:lxd2 'tie6 1 3 lt:lf4 'tif6 14 i.e2 g5 1 5 lt:ld5 'tie6 16 0-0-0 'i!lb!:! 1 7 i.f3 lt:le5 (thn:atening . . . lt:ld3+) with a complicated game, Ackermann-Meyer, corres 1 958. I f 18 i.e2 :Sd7 19 c5 Black regains t he pawn with 19 . . . lt:le4 20 liJ Xe4 �xe4. b) I I �e2 i. xd 12 �xc3 lt:l e4 1 3 0-0 lihg8 and 1 4 . . . g5 has never occurred in pract ice. Black need hardly fear this variat ion.

8 i.xc3 9 i,xc3 i.xe4

10 '@d2 0-0 I I 0-0-0

Now the natural I I . . . lt:lc6? is bad: 1 2 c5! lt:lf5 1 3 f3 'tixd2+ 1 4 ll xd2 lt:le3 1 5 fe lt:lxfl 16 lle2 1 -0. de Carbonnei-Starke, Leipzig 1953.

84 Fajarowicz 4 1t'c2

. . . the position is roughly equal. It is not possible to sketch out a un iversal plan for further play. An artificial demonstration game which shows a plausible course of events if White attacks on the kingside direct ly :

2 1

1 2 f3 �g6 1 3 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 2 1 gh?

h4 ll:le2 ll:lf4 ll:lh5 c5

1Wf2 g4 g5 b3

1t'xa2

h6 ll:lc5 �h7 ll:le6 ll:lf5 1We8 ll:le7 'tlra4

followed by

't!Vb l +. 21 \!t'a3+ 22 1t'b2 1Wxb2+ 23 'it>xb2 �g6 24 ll:lg3 h5 25 b4 ll:lf5 26 ll:lxf5 �xf5 27 �d3 �xd3 28 l hd3 lUd8 29 llhdl 'it>� 30 'it>c2 'it>e7

1/z-1/z This is only a single example as

i l lustration; in a practical game there are naturally many other possibilities for both sides.

Summary

In the variation 4 \!t'c2 Black has the choice between the particularly sharp continuation 4 . . . d5 and the solid variation 4 . . . �b4+. In all variations Black plays . . . d5 and . . . �f5 - the standard moves of this line. For White the set-ups with ed and ll:lc3 are best. With that, general tips are almost exhausted. This variation is a tactical one; knowledge of concrete move orders is necessary.

8 Fajarowicz 4 ltJf3 and others

1 d4 ll::lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ll::le4

In Chapter 6 we dealt with various queen moves on the d-file, in Chapter 7 the important variation 4 'tlrc2. In th is chapter we examine the main variation 4 ll::lf3 and two other, rarely played, moves: A 4 ll::ld2 14 a3 8 4 ll::lf3 ll::lc6 c 4 ll::lf3 .1b4+

A 1 4 ll::ld2 ll::lc5 A2 4 a3

A I

/09 w

4 ll::ld2 ll::lc5 (109)

After 5 ll::lgf3 ll::lc6 the game transposes to B.

ECO gives 5 b4 ll::le6 6 a3 a5 ! 7 b5 d6 1l ed .i.xd6 9 ll::lgf3 0-0 1 0 e3 ll::ld7 with a good game for Black (the square c5 for the knight on e6, while the other comes to f6 or e5 ). 7 . . . b6!? comes into consideration ( instead of 7 .. . d6) with the plausible follow-up 8 ll::lgf3 .i.b7 9 e3 g5!? I 0 .1b2 .i.g7 I I 'tlrc2 (protecting the bishop on b2 in order to be able to capture the d-pawn after an eventual . . . d6) I I . . . g4 1 2 ll::ld4 ll::lc5! (but not 1 2 . . . i.xe5?? 13 ll::lxe6) 1 3 ll::le2 (the idea is protect the pawn on e5 and prepare ll:Jg3-f5 ) 1 3 . . . d6 14 ll::lg3 ( 14 ed ..txb2 15 'tlrxb2?? ll::ld3+) 14 . . . ..txe5 1 5 ..txe5 de and Black's position is preferable (the plan is . . . 'ttf6, . . . ll::lbd7 ' . . . 0-�0).

Certamly not everything has been played out in this variation, but on general strategic grou nds Black must have a good game. The extra white pawn is weak and doubled and Black has a permanent st rong point for his knight on c5.

86 Fajarowicz 4 �f3 and others

A2

4 a3 This prevents the often unplea

sant bishop check, but Black has a simple way of equalising.

Game 33 O'Kelly-Bisguier San Juan 1 969

( I d4 �f6 2 c4 e5 3 de �e4) 4 a3 1Vh4 5 g3

On 5 i.e3 Staker gives the following variation: 5 .. . ..tc5 6 ..txc5 �xc5 7 'i!fc2 (7 e3 �c6 8 �f3 'i!fe7 with equal ity; 9 1td5?! b6 followed by . . . ..tb7 and moving the kn ight from c6 is favourable for Black) 7 . . . �c6 8 li:lf3 1th5 9 e3 ltJxe5 I 0 ..te2 d6 I I lLlbd2 ..tg4 with equality.

5 trh5 6 lLld2

6 ltJf3 ltJc6 7 1!fc2 (7 ..tf4 ..tc5! 8 e3 g5) 7 . . . 1!ff5 ! ( threatening . . . ltJxg3). 7 ltJbd2 leads t o the text.

6 ltJxd2 7 1!fxd2 �c6 8 ltjf3

8 f4?! is risky: 8 . . . d6! 9 ed ..txd6 10 e4 i.g4 I I e5 ..tc5 followed by . . . lild8 with a powerful ini t iative.

8 ltJxe5 9 1!fe3 d6

1 0 ..tg2 ..te7 I I li:lxe5 1Wxe5 12 'irxe5 dt:

1/z-1/z

Those who fi nd this too 4uiet can try 7 . . . 1!fxe5 instead of 7 . . . ltJc6, e.g. 8 ltJf3 1tf6 9 ..tg2 g6 1 0 0-0 ..tg7. Here too the balance is maintained and there are still many pieces on the board. The game is quite open .

B

1 /0 w

4 ltjf3 lLlc6 (I 10)

The two most common moves are: 81 5 lLlbd2 82 5 a3!

Others: a) 5 ..tf4? ..tc5 6 e3 ..tb4+ 7 lLlbd2 g5 8 ..ig3 h5 9 h3 ltJxg3 10 fg 1fe7 with advantage to B lack. b) 5 e3 d6 6 ed ..txd6 7 o.'L!bd2 lLlc5 8 a3 't!Vf6 9 lLlb3 lt.Jxb3 10 \Wxb3 ..tg4!, Strasdas-Richter, Berlin 1933. After 1 1 ..te2 0-0-0 12 h3 ..th5 followed by . . . lLle5 the situation was unclear but Black is certainly very active.

Snatching the pawn with I I 'i!fxb7 does not turn out well : I I . . .

0-0 1 2 .i.e2 ( 1 2 Wxc6'r! .i.b4+) 1 2 . . . llab8 1 3 Wa6 liJd4 (threatening . . . ..tb4+ winning the queen) and Black stands superbly, e.g. 1 4 't!ra4 lL!xe2 1 5 �xe2 llxb2+! 1 6 ..txb2 Wxb2+ 1 7 �d3 lld8 1 8 liJd4 .i.c5 threatening both ... ..tf5+ and . . . llxd4+. c) S WdS ..tb4+ 6 ..td2 liJxd2 7 lL!bxd2 We7 8 0-0-0 ..txd2+ 9 llxd2 and we have transposed into Bli.imich-Fajarowicz, Chapter 6, C 1 . After 9 . . . liJb4 Black has equalised.

81 s llJbdl

Here it should be noticed that this variation can also arise after 4 lt:ld2 lt:lc5 5 llJgf3 . Therefore you should look at this section even if you decide to play the variation 4 . . . ..tb4+ (see C) instead of 4 . . . lL!c6.

I l l w

s liJcS (I 1 1)

Fajarowicz 4 lLlf3 and others 87

H l l 6 g3 8 1 2 6 a3

8 1 1 6 g3 d6 7 ed ..txd6 8 ..tgl 0-0

9 0-0 Wf6 1 0 lL!b3 ..te6 I I lt:lxc5 ..txc5 1 2 Wa4 ..tg4 1 3 lL!g5 llae8 14 lL!e4 llxe4 1 5 ..txe4 ..txe2 and Black regains the exchange with a good game, Barcza-Halic, Hungary 1 946.

812 6 a3

and now: We7

a) 7 b4? lL!xe5 8 e3 (8 lL!xe5 Wxe5 with the double threat of . . . liJd3 mate and . .. Wxa I ) 8 . .. liJcd3+ and Black stands better. b) 7 e3 lL!xe5 8 lL!xe5 'tlfxe5 9 lt:lf3 1ff6 10 .i.e2 ..te7 I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 liJd4 lL!e6 1 3 lL!b5, Rejfir-Richter, Prague 1 93 1 , and now 13 . . . d6 14 .if3 lld8 with equality. The following variation, naturally not forced, demonstrates that this position can quickly 'tip over' : 1 5 lib I (better is 1 5 lL!c3 im mediately) 1 5 . . . c6 1 6 lL!c3 lL!g5 1 7 ..te2 ..tf5 1 8 .i.d3 liJh3+! 19 gh ( 19 ct>h l? .i.xd3 20 Wxd3 lL!xf2+) 19 . . . Wg6+ 20 �h I ..txd3 2 1 llg I ..txb I 22 llxg6 ..txg6 and Black stands better.

Here, too, the path divides, illus- B2 trated by practical examples. S a3!

88 Fajarowicz 4 �/3 and others

Prevents the usual freeing and pinning manoeuvre . . . .i.b4+ and also a later . . . lt:lb4. Black now has problems.

s d6 What else? 5 . . . a5 6 b3 d6 7 .i.b2

.i.e7 8 �bd2 �xd2 9 Wxd2 with a healthy extra pawn for White.

6 1fc2 (1 12)

After 6 . . . d5 there follows 7 cd 1fxd5 8 �c3 �xc3 9 -.xc3 .i.g4 10 .i.f4 and Black has scarcely anything for the pawn.

With regard to 6 . . . .i.f5, see the following illustrative game:

Game 34 Reshevsky-Bisguier New York 1954-5

( I d4 �f6 2 c4 e5 3 de �e4 4 lt:IO �c6 5 a3 d6)

6 1fc2 7 �c3 s wxrs 9 e6

10 Wxe6+

.i.f5 �xfl �xbl fe

We7

1 1 WdS The first storm is over and what

are Black's prospects? Pretty bad. He cannot castle because of .i.g5. So:

1 1 h6 1 2 g3 gS

Again castling was not good on account of 13 �h4 Wf6 (or 13 . . . lt:lxg3 1 4 hg 1ff6 1 5 lt:le4) 1 4 Wxh I followed by �d5. Therefore Black prevents �h4.

13 .i.g2 �xg3 14 hg (1 13)

Castling is still denied to Black: 14 ... � 15 �d4 with devastation on the h l -aS diagonal. Black can still parry this threat but we see that in this game he can never act, but only react.

14 .i.g7 I S .i.h3 lt:leS 16 .i.dl!

16 Wxb7 �0 and Black still lives for a time.

16 g4

1 7 J.xg4 hS 1 8 .ifS c6 1 9 't!t'e4 q;,ds 20 lLlgS .if6 2 1 lLle6+ q;,cs 22 0-0...0 q;,bs 23 .if4 b6 24 q;,bl 1 -0

After, for example, 24 . . . q;,b7 , 25 lLlb5 wins.

Summary

After 4 ll:lf3, 4 . . . ll:lc6 is not good because of 5 a3. After 5 a3, the move 6 •c2 gains significantly in strength in comparison with lines in Chapter 6 (4 •c2), as neither . . . .i.b4+ nor . . . otlb4 are possible.

c 4 <tlfl .i.b4+

We now examine: Cl S .tell Cl S otlbdl

Cl s .i.d2

Game 35 Smyslov-Steiner Groningen 1946

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de �e4 4 <tlf3 .i.b4+)

s J.dl ltJxdl ltJc6 6 ltJbxd2

7 8 9

a3 .i.xdl+ •xd2 1fe7 1fcJ (1 14)

Fajarowicz 4 lLlf3 and others 89

9 0...0? The plan with kingside castling

does not prove very good. A very important alternative comes into consideration here: 9 . . . b6!? 1 0 e3 .tb7 I I .te2 0-� 1 2 lild l ( 12 � lilhe8 and . . . lLlxe5) 1 2 . . . lilde8! 13 lild5 g5! . Here Black can become active on the kings ide with . . . llhg8 o r eventually regain the pawn on e5 by lilgCH:6. There is still no practical experience of this plan.

10 lldl lile8 I I lildS

Everything turns on regaining or holding the extra white pawn on e5. Now Black cannot attack this pawn again so he prepares to drive away the rook on d5.

1 1 b6 1 2 e3 .tb7 13 J.e2 llad8 14 0-0 �b8

If the rook on d5 now moves Black achieves his aim: 1 5 litd2 .txf3 16 .txf3 •xe5 with equality

90 Fajarowicz 4 li:JfJ and others

according to Smyslov. The black k night is easily mobilised: . . . d6 followed by . . . li:Jd7 etc.

After a notable exchange sac-rifice . . .

15 16

l:lcl! cd

.i.xd5

33 e7 lle8 34 1!rd8

1-0 So it d idn't turn out well for

Black . However Black could have chosen the plan with castling long on the 9th move. He is well advised

. . . White obtains an overwhelming to do this. advantage which he converts to a win by precise play: C2

1 15 w

16 d6 5 li:Jbd2 (1 16) 1 7 .ib5 18 e4 19 .id3 20 li:Jxe5

21 l0c4 22 li:Je3 23 1!rxc7 24 g3 25 e5 26 h4 27 llc4 28 l:U4 29 li:Jg4 30 .ixg6 31 e6 32 �h2

llf8 a6 1 16 de B

lld6 (115)

In my opinion the best variation for White.

5 li:Jc6 Other moves are less good :

llh6 a) 5 ... f5 (suggested by Staker) 6 ef 1!rh4 1!rxf6 7 1!rc2 and after the exchange llf6 on d2 White continues his develop-1!rh5 mc:nt without problems and has a llh6 healthy extra pawn. 1!rf3 b) 5 .. . d5 (£CO) 6 ed 1!rxd6 and b5 now 7 a3 ! .txd2+ 8 li:Jxd2 (8 .i.xd2

1!rh5 't!rb6 9 e3 1!rxb2) and Black has llg6 almost nothing for the pawn. 'tlt'xg6 6 a3 li:Jxd2 't!rbl+ 7 li:Jxd2 f5 7 ab?! li:Jxc4 is good for Black,

e.g. !l b5 lt:l6xe5; !l 11t'd5 lt:lb6 9 11t'e4 \i'e7 1 0 .td2 d5! with advantage to Black.

The important alternative 7 .txd2 can lead to game 3 5 after 7 . . . .txd2+ 8 11t'xd2 11t'e7 9 11t'c3. You should also remember here the plan with castling long: 9 . . . b6 followed by . . . .tb7 and . . . 0-0-0.

7 .tf8 The lesser evil . 7 . . . .txd2+ 8

.txd2 lt:lxe5 9 .tc3 gives White a lasting advantage in a position that is easy to play, e.g. 9 . . . f6 10 e3 d6 I I .te2 0-0 12 0-0 .te6 1 3 b3 and White can slowly tighten his grip (plan: 'ttc2, llae l , e4, f4).

White's chances may still be somewhat better after the text continuation but in a complicated position a single inaccurate move is enough to lose the advantage.

As there are no examples from play of this attempted improvement we must be content with some constructed variations:

8 lt:lrJ 'ite7 9 .tgS 'ite6

1 0 't!tdS h6 I I .tr4 gS 12 .tg3 .tg7 13 e3

Naturally an exchange of queens either here or earlier will simply transpose .

1 3 14 .te2 I S 0-0

b6 .tb7 0-0-0 ( 1 1 7)

Fajarowicz 4 lt:\fJ and others 91

1 / 7 w

The game is unclear. Black now threatens 1 6 . . . lt:lxe5 1 7 'itxe6 lt:lxf3+. If here (or earlier) 1 6 lt:ld4 then . . . 't!txd5 followed by . . . lt:lxe5.

After 16 't!txe6 de the following variations are plausible: a) 17 llrdl g4 18 lt:ld4 lt:lxe5 1 9 .txe5 .txe5 20 .txg4 c 5 2 1 lt:lb5 a l ) 21 . . . lldg8 22 .th 3 .tf3 23 lld2 llxg2+ 24 .txg2 llg!l (with the winning threat 25 . . . lhg2+ followed by . .. llxhl) 25 lt:lxa 7+ 'o&b8 26 lid!!+! lhd8 27 .txf3 'o&xa 7 28 llb I lil:d2 and opposite bishops guarantee a draw. a2) 21 . . . .txb2 with unclear play. b) 17 h3 lt:le7 18 lt:ld4 lt:lg6 19 f4 gf 20 .txf4 .txe5 with roughly equal play. Less good would be 20 . . . lLlxe5 2 1 i.xe5 .txe5 22 lhf7 .txd4 23 ed lhd4 24 .tg4! .

Summary

In the Fajarowicz Gambit sharp variations arise after queen sort 1es on the 4th move which are certainly

92 Fajarowicz 4 liJfJ and others

playable for Hlack . Here t actics

rule over strategy; there are no

general plans: whoever is familiar with the most important variations of the material at hand will have excel lent chances in a game.

4 liJf3 is the most unpleasant for

Black . A compl icated , s trategic

struggle arises, though stil l with tactical elements. Black has practical chances in positions where the pawn on e5 is put under slow siege, as is discussed in detail in the foregoing chapter.

9 Declining the Gambit

1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e5

Declining the gambit very rarely occurs in practice. Here is a collection of the k nown examples: A 3 e3 B 3 i.g5 C 3 e4 D 3 d5 E 3 ll::!B

A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 0

e3 ed

i.d2 ltJxd2 .td3 li)e2 0-0 f3

ed i.b4+ i.xd2+ 0-0 d5

i.g4 ll:lc6 .i.h5 +

Vistaneckis-Vajda, Prague 193 1 . Black plays . . . lle8 and . . . .i.g6 and exerts pressure on White's centfal pawns, e.g . . . . de followed by . . . li)d5 and doubling on the d-file.

B 3 i.g5 ed 4 Wxd4 i.e7 5 ll:lf3 ll:lc6 6 Wdl �e4 7 .ixe7 Wxe7 8 a3 d6 9 e3 0-0

10 i.e2 Wf6 I I ltJbd2 .tr5 +

Lad mann-Tartakower, Scarbo-rough 1929. After 1 2 ltJxe4 i.xe4 1 3 tfd2 llad8 14 0-0 d5 Black is obviously more active. c

3 e4 ltJxe4 (I I 8)

94 Declining the Gambit

4 de 4 tt'e2 .ib4+ 5 lt:ld2 lt:lxd2 6

't!t'xe5+ .ie7! 7 .ixd2 0-0 followed by . . . .if6 and . . . U.e8 +.

4 .ic5 Now Schlechter gives:

a) 5 lt:lh3 d6 6 't!t'e2 f5 7 ef 0-0! 8 fg U.e8 9 .ie3 .ixe3 10 fe .i.xh3 1 1 gh 1!rh4+ and wins. b) 5 lt:lh3 d6 6 'tlt'd5 f5 7 ef lt:lx£6 followed by .. . 0-0 and later . . . .i.xh3 or, if lt:lh3-f4, . . . lt:lg4. c) 5 't!t'd5 .i.xf2+ 6 �2 f5 7 ef lt:lxf6 8 'tlt'eS+ �n with advantage to Black (9 �xf2?? �g4+; 9 �d 1 U.e8). D

1 /9 w

3 d5 4 lt:lc3

Now:

.i.c5 d6 (1 19)

a) 5 'tlt'c2 c6 6 lt:lf3 0-0 7 .i.g5 (7

e4? lt:lg4) 7 . . . lt:lbd7 8 e3 'tlt'c7 9 .i.d3 h6 10 .i.h4 .ib4 I I de be 1 2 0-0 .i.b7 i s good for Black (plan : . . . dS; 1 3 e4 lt:lh5 and . . . lt:lf4). b) 5 e4 c6 6 .i.d3 (6 lt:lf3 lt:lg4) 6 . . . c d 7 c d a 6 8 lt:lf3 lt:lbd7 9 0-0 (9 .i.gS h6 10 .ih4 lt:lf8 followed by . . . lt:lg6 and eventually . . . lt:lh5-f4 square for the knight ! ) 9 . . . 0-0 10 .i.gS h6 1 1 .i.h4 bS and in I M Minev's opinion Black is better (plan: . . . �b6, . . . .i.b7, . . . U.c8 with play on the queenside). E

3 4 lt:lxd4 5 cd

ed d5

On S lt:lc3? Black has S . . . cS followed by . . . d4.

5 6 lt:lc3 7 'tlt'a4+ 8 lt:lxc6 9

1 0 1 1

be lt:lb4 �xd5

'tlt'xd5 .i.b4 lt:lc6 .i.xc3+ .id7! .ixa4 lt:lxd5

According to Carl Schlechter, Black has more than enough compensation for the opponent's bishop pair in his better pawn structure and open l ines after . . . 0-0-0.

Index of Variations

I 2 3

3 e3 93 3 .tg5 93 3 e4 93 3 d5 94 3 ltJf3 94

d4 c4 de

Budapest Gambit

lt:lr6 e5

3 llJg4 4 llJO

4 .tr4 and now: 4 0 0 0 g5 22 4 0 0 0 llJc6 5 llJf3 .tb4+ 6 llJbd2 1We7:

7 e3 24 7 a3 24

4 0 0 0 llJc6 5 llJf3 .ib4+ 6 llJc3 .txc3+ 7 be We7 8 1td5 f6 9 ef llJxf6: 10 1!t'd3 27 10 t!t"d2 29 10 1ld l 29

4 e4 and now: 4 O o o h5:

5 h3 33 5 .te2:

5 0 0 0 .tc5 34 5 0 0 0 d6 36

96 Index of Variations

4 . . . d6: 5 ed 36 5 .te2 �xe5 6 f4:

6 . . . �ec6 4"0 6 . . . �g6 40 6 . . . �g4 1 �n:

7 . . . .te7 41 7 ... �c6 41

4 . . . �xe5 5 f4 �g6: 6 �f3 42 6 .teJ 46

4 . . . �xe5 5 f4 �ec6: 6 �f3 47 6 aJ 49 6 .teJ .tb4+ 7 �cJ:

7 . . . d6 5 1 7 . . . 1!re7 51 7 . . . Wh4+ 52

4 f4 55

4 1fd4 55

4 1fd5 �c6 5 �fJ d6: 6 .tg5 57 6 ed 58

4 e3 58

4 �c3 58

4 a3 58

4 e6 59

4 4 . • . i.c5 5 eJ �c6:

6 9d5 13

Index of Variatoins 97

6 a 3 a5 7 b3 0-0 8 .i.b2 liteS 9 �c3 li:lgxe5 10 li:lxe5 li:lxe5 I I .i.e2 d6 1 2 0-0 lile6!?:

1 3 �d5 14 1 3 g3 /5 1 3 �a4 15

6 .i.e2 10gxe5 7 0-0 0-0 8 li:lxe5 li:lxe5 9 b3 lilc8 I 0 li:lc3; 10 . . . a5 16 10 . . . d6:

I I ..tb2 18 I I li:la4 19

S e3 5 ..tg5 1 1

s .l.b4+

5 . . . ltlgxe5 8 6 10bd2 6

6 .l.d2 2 6 10c3 J

Fajarowicz Gambit

3 4 •c2

4 .l.f4?! 61 4 ltlc3? 61 4 .dl 62 4 .d4 65 4 .d5 65 4 ltld2 10c5 85 4 a3 86 4 /Of) ltlc6:

5 a3! 87 5 ltlbd2 ltlc5:

6 g3 87 6 a3 87

4 /Of) .l.b4+:

5 ..td2 89 5 ltlbd2 90

98 Index of Variations

4 dS 4 . . . .ib4+:

5 l!Jd2 79 5 l!Jc3! 83 5 ed

5 l!Jf3? 69 5 e3?! 68 5 cd 68

5 .tr5 6 l!Jc3

6 de? 70 6 't!ta4+? 71 6 1tb3? 72

6 6 . . . others 74

l!Jxd6 74

Index of Complete Games

Ahues-Helling 33 Alekhine-Seitz 43,5 1 Akesson-Tagnon 1 6 Antainen-Nieminen M I

Bascau-Meewes !!2 Capablanca-Tartakower 37 Chebotayev-lsayev 44 Chebotayev-Machkin 50 Egli-Bauer 38 Golombek-Tartakower 34 Gilfer-Richter 72 Gutman-Shvidler 2 Inkiov-Djukic 30 Keres-Gilg 52 Knaak-Adamski 6

Kottnauer-Martin 74 Krastev-Donev 70 Laghkva-Contendini 82 Lanzani-Rogers 3 1 Laszlo-A bonyi 56

Lukacs-Sch iissler 25 Mititelu-Seineanu 69

P.Nikolic-Barbero 8 O'Kelly-Bisguier 86

Osnos-Yermolinsky 1 9

100 Index of Complete Games

Rasin-lvanov Reshevsky-Bisguier Rossner-Kipke Smyslov-Steiner Sosonko-Ree Steiner-Fajarowicz Thomas-Reti Timet-Meyer Vaganian-Wed berg Vukic-Rogers

59

8 8

7 0

89

1 0

7 1

3

80

47

28

budapest gambit - archive.org

Documents