E.C.O. Busted: Five Hundred Thirty-Five Nefutations, Re-Evaluations, Novelties, Improvements and Connections to the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings [Paperback ed.] 1880673924, 9781880673928

Citation preview

E.C.O. BUSTED! by USCF Master Sid Pickard

"A

book

of

corrections

to

the

ENCYCLOPEDIA

OF

CHESS

OPENINGS has been needed for a long time, and with E.C.O. BUSTED!

it is finally realized... E.C.O. BUSTED! is a very useful book for a wide range of readers.... one merit of the book is a provocation of further .

and deeper Grandmaster.

analysis."

-

Leonid Shamkovich,

International

"Fascinating reading! Page after page of interesting positions and new ideas."

-

Jack Peters,

International Master and Los Angeles

Times chess columnist.

"Since its debut in 1977 the E.C.O. series has set the standard for openings research, but recent delays in producing updated volumes have diminished its usefulness. Master Pickard has done the chess world a valuable service by producing this work which fills a big gap."-

John Donaldson,

International Master

"After seeing E.C.O. BUSTED! you will never accept the assessments of an opening manual at face value again.... USCF Master Pickard has done an incredible amount of research and examined the most obscure sources to poke dozens of holes in the most highly regarded of all chess opening books." John Jacobs, F.I.D.E. -

Master.

•

•

•

.. •

• 535 REFUTATIONS, RE-EVALUATIONS, NOVELTIES, IMPROVEMENTS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHESS OPENINGS

Compiled by

USCF MASTER SID PICKARD

Edited by Lou Hays and Senior Master John Hall

Hays Publishing

Dallas, Texas

Copyright© Sid Pickard,

1 993

All rights reserved under Pan American and International Copyright conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocop­ ying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher.

Editors: Lou Hays and John Hall Book design and typeset: Lou Hays File Creation: Sid Pickard Proofreaders: David Sewell, Sid Pickard, John Hall Illustrative game computer files built on Zarkov 2.5 (Created by John Stanback and Distributed by Chess Laboratories) and ChessBase 4.0 (Distributed by Chessbase, U.S.A). Diagrams created on Zarkov 2.5 and Diagram 2.01 (Diagram 2.01 created by Steve Kelly).

First printing September, 1993

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hays Publishing P.O. Box 797623 Dallas, Texas 75379

ISBN 1-880673-92-4 Softcover

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Explanation o f sym bols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Author's pre face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . ..

7 11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

.

The E .C.O. classi fica tion sys te m (by open ing name) The E .C . O. classi fica tio n sys te m (by code ) Vol um e A Vol um e B Vol um e C Volum e D Volum e E

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

6

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

15

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . 1 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 73 . . . . . 21 5 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Index o f comple te games

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

235

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

00

1 -0 0-1 1 /2-1 /2 !! ? ?? !? ?! # += =+ +-+ ++-++ +=1+-

CYB RCR NIC

Unclear position Wh ite won Black won Drawn game Strong move Brilliant move Weak move Blunder Interesting move Dubious move Checkmate White has a slightly better position Black has a slightly better position White is clearly better Black is clearly better White h as a winning advantage Black has a winning advantage White is slightly to clearly better Equal Chess Correspondence Yearbook Russian Chess Review New in Chess

AUTHOR'S PREFACE Suppose for a moment that you are studying an opening variation to try out in next month's tournament, or you're a correspondence player choosing between two lines of play. In the course of your preparations you consult a reference manual, say the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, and discover that a certain sequence of moves is said to end in a clear disadvantage for yourself. What now? The great majority of us would simply think to ourselves, "Well, I certainly can't play that! Grandmaster so-and-so says I'll come out badly, so I'd better try something else. " Unfortunately, at that precise moment our development as well-rounded chess players got stunted; we began learning the habit of slavishness, and began losing the capacity to think independently. To complicate matters, in ninety-five cases out of one hundred "Grandmaster so-and-so" is correct, we will come out badly in that line. But what of the other five cases? How are we to recognize his lapses if we take every utterance of the professional uncritically? That is where I hope the present volume will be found useful. Two goals were before me in compiling the material for this book. First, to help instill a healthy skepticism in the reader for established opening theory. Consider the words of Emanuel Lasker, who wrote that "... the chess student should not trust an analysis merely because he sees it in print. He must examine, he must do his own thinking and by conscientious work he must form his own judgment. " I believe that one way to achieve the "mistrust" Lasker desired in students is through the repetition of examples in which the best players have proven to be wrong. Such repetition, I think, also works toward my second goal: entertainment. Yes, we may hate to admit it, but watching the world's leading players fall flat on their analytical faces does offer a certain perverse pleasure. And we learn that they too are mortal, afflicted with the same chess blindness that we suffer from.

Let's try a practice run, to see if we can suspend our belief in a received assessment, and have fun at the same time. ECO, in a note to its coverage of the Ruy Lopez, gives the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Bc6 de 7.Re1 Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.g4 Bg6? 1O.Ne5

with a clear advantage to White.

What does White's advantage consist of? Well, he's got an extra pawn, and Black's light-squared Bishop may be discomfited by an eventual f4-f5. That seems easy enough, but in Wittmann-Malinin, corr. 1990-91 the diagrammed position arose, and after 10 ...Be4 11.g5 Black shot back with the excellent 11... Rg8!!. The final moves were 12.gf gf 13.Ng4 f5 14.Kf1 Qd6 15.Nc3 Bh1 ! 0-1. White elected not to see how his opponent might conclude matters, but Malinin analyzes the further 16. Ke2 (16. Ne3 Oh6 -+) Bg2 17. Ne3 (17.Rg1 Rg4! -+) Bh3 18.Rh1 Qh6 19.d3 f4 20.Nc4 Rg2 21.0e1 0-0-0, when Black's attacking prospects give him a clear advantage. Malinin's achievement is impressive enough, but the root of his success lies in an unwillingness to shrink away when confronted by the authority of printed analysis. Likewise, there may someday come a player who, upon seeing this game, remains unconvinced, and finds a way for White to turn the tables. It is that process of independent thinking which I hope to encourage in these pages, and if only one

reader will gather up his courage and refute an assertion made here, then I can be satisfied. In this book you will find the published opinions of Grandmasters, Masters, and even amateurs. My job has been to select and present their ideas, and I have tried to keep from interjecting myself into their work- a difficult task. Occasionally I was unable to resist offering my "two cents" but, in keeping with their market value, they have been clearly marked as editorial coinage! Also, you will readily see that I have been at pains to cite the source of each piece of analysis given here. To do otherwise would be less than honest, but additionally I thought it good to offer the reader a chance to consult my primary documents for analysis and ideas not included in these pages. I hope that this feature might be useful to those wishing to undertake further research. Concerning the format, there are four categories of examples in this book: Busts, Improvements, Corrections, and Novelties. The first two should be self-explanatory, and the third covers errors of fact, typos, and the like. Concerning the category of "novelty", however, I would like to make a special point. We all know that novelties, as such, are rather cheap. That is, we could each produce novelties all day long, but whether they'd prove worthwhile is another matter. Each novelty in this volume has been carefully considered, and I believe them all to be important, entertaining, and capable of changing the evaluation of the line in question. Keep in mind that there are several ways to use the contents of this book, other than in satisfying one's base desire to beat the other guy. Well, come to think of it, perhaps not. Yet those more peaceably-minded will find here an excellent game collection, or a catalogue of amusing traps, or simply a bedside companion of opening armor. Whatever your goal, I hope that Lasker's admonition quoted above will become a fixed part of your approach to chess. Finally, I would like to point out the tremendous contribution that postal players are making to the advance of opening theory. I am gratified to see periodicals now available devoted to their labors -

ignore these at your peril! A special word of thanks is due my publisher, Lou Hays. I know him to be a dedicated seeker after quality, who puts more effort into producing books than many do in writing them.

Sid Pickard USCF Master August, 1993

E.C.O. CLASSIFICATION ALEKHINE'S DEFENSE BENONI DEFENSE BIRO'S OPENING BISHOP'S OPENING BLUMENFELD COUNTER GAMBIT BOGO-INDIAN DEFENSE BENKO GAMBIT BUDAPEST DEFENSE CARO KANN DEFENSE CATALAN CENTER COUNTER GAME CENTER GAMBIT

B02-B05 A56, A60-A79 A02-A03 C23-C24

(by opening name)

QUEEN'S GAMBIT ALBIN COUNTER GAMBIT SLAV QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED TARRASCH

E10 E11 A57-A59 A51-A52 B1O-B19 EOO-E09 B01 C21-C22

EXCHANGE

5.814 VARIATION RAGOZIN SYSTEM SEMI-TARRASCH SEMI-SLAV CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS ORTHODOX DEFENSE LASKER DEFENSE TARTAKOWER DEFENSE

DUTCH DEFENSE STAUNTON GAMBIT LENINGRAD SYSTEM STONEWALL VARIATION FLUID SYSTEM

A80-A99 A82-A83 A86-A89 A92-A95 A96-A99

QUEEN'S INDIAN DEFENSE QUEEN'S PAWN GAME RETI OPENING

E12-E19 D00-005 A04-A09

RUY LOPEZ

C60-C99 C61 C62 C63 C64 C65-C67 C68-C69 C71-C76 C80-C83 C89 C92 C93 C94-C95 C96-C99

ENGLISH OPENING EVANS GAMBIT FOUR KNIGHTS' GAME

A10-A39 C51-C52 C47-C49

FRENCH DEFENSE

COO-C19 C01 C03-C09 C11-C14 C15-C19

BERLIN DEFENSE

GUIOCCO PIANO GRUENFELD DEFENSE HUNGARIAN DEFENSE IRREGULAR KING'S GAMBIT

C50, C53, C54 070-099 C50 AOO C30-C39

SMYSLOV VARIATION

KING'S INDIAN DEFENSE

E60-E99 E62-E69 E76-E79 E80-E89 E90-E99

BIRO'S DEFENSE OLD STEINITZ DEFENSE SCHLIE MANN DEFENSE CLASSICAL DEFENSE

EXCHANGE TARRASCH CLASSICAL WINAWER

EXCHANGE VARIATION MODERN STEINITZ DEFENSE OPEN DEFENSE MARSHALL ATTACK ZAITSEV VARIATION

FIANCHETTO VARIATION FOUR PAWN'S ATTA CK SAMISCH VARIATION CLASSICAL VARIATION

BREYER VARIATION TCHIGORIN DEFENSE

SCOTCH GAMBIT SCOTCH GAME

C44 C45

SICILIAN DEFENSE

B20-B99 B22 B23-B26 B32 B33 B34-835 B36-839 B41-B49 B58-B59 B60-B69 B70-B79 B80-B85 B57, 886-889 B90-B99

ALA PIN VARIATION CLOSED LOEWENTHAL VARIATION PELIKAN!SV ESHNIKOV

LARSEN'S OPENING LATVIAN GAMBIT

A01 C40

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENSE

E20-E59 E24-E29 E30-E31 E40-E59

SIMAGIN VARIATION MAROCZV BIND PA ULSEN VARIATION

SA MISCH VARIATION LEN INGRAD VARIATION RUBINSTEIN VARIATION

BOLESLAVSKY DEFENSE RICHTER-RAUZER ATTACK DRAGON VARIATION SCHEVENINGEN VARIATION SOZIN ATTA CK

NIMZOWITSCH DEFENSE OLD INDIAN DEFENSE PETROFF (RUSSIAN) PHILIDOR'S DEFENSE PIRC-ROBATSCH PONZIANI'S OPENING

BOO A53-A55 C42-C43 C41 B07-B09 C44

006-069 008-009 010-019 020-029 032-034 035-036 037 038-039 040-042 043-049 052 053-069 056-057 058-059

NAJDORF VARIATION

THREE KNIGHT'S GAME TWO KNIGHT'S DEFENSE VIENNA GAME

C46 C55-C59 C25-C29

E.C.O. CLASSIFICATION IRREGULAR LARSEN'S OPENING BIRO'S OPENING RETI OPENING ENGLISH OPENING BUDAPEST DEFENSE OLD INDIAN DEFENSE BENKO GAMBIT BENONI DEFENSE DUTCH DEFENSE STAUNTON GAMBIT LENINGRAD SYSTEM STONEWALL VARIATION FLUID SYSTEM

ADO A01 A02-A03 A04-A09 A10-A39 A51-A52 A53-A55 A57-A59 A60-A79,A56 A80-A99 A82-A83 A86-A89 A92-A95 A96-A99

(by code)

GUIOCCO PIANO (ITALIAN) EVANS GAMBIT

C50,C53, C54 C51-C52

TWO KNIGHT'S DEFENSE

C55-C59

RUY LOPEZ

C60-C99 C61 C62 C63 C64 C65-C67 C68-C69 C71-C76 C80-C83 C89 C92 C93 C94-C95 C96-C99

BIRO'S DEFENSE OLD STEINITZ DEFENSE SCHLIEMANN DEFENSE CLASSICAL DEFENSE BERLIN DEFENSE EXCHANGE VARIATION MODERN STEINITZ DEFENSE OPEN DEFENSE MARSHALL ATIACK

NIMZOWITSCH DEFENSE CENTER COUNTER GAME ALEKHINE'S DEFENSE PIRC-ROBATSCH CARO KANN DEFENSE SICILIAN DEFENSE ALA PIN VARIATION CLOSED LOEWENTHAL VARIATION PELIKAN!SVESHNIKOV SIMAGIN VARIATION MAROClY BIND PAULSEN VARIATION BOLESLAVSKY DEFENSE RICHTER-RAUZER ATIACK DRAGON VARIATION SCHEVENINGEN VARIATION SOZIN ATIACK NAJDORF VARIATION

FRENCH DEFENSE EXCHANGE TARRASCH CLASSICAL WINAWER

CENTER GAMBIT BISHOP'S OPENING VIENNA GAME KING'S GAMBIT LATVIAN GAMBIT PHILIDOR'S DEFENSE PETROFF (RUSSIAN) PONZIANI'S OPENING SCOTCH GAMBIT SCOTCH GAME THREE KNIGHT'S GAME FOUR KNIGHTS' GAME HUNGARIAN DEFENSE

BOO B01 B02-B05 B07-B09 B1O-B19 B20-B99 B22 B23-B26 B32 B33 B34-B35 B36-B39 B41-B49 B58-B59 B60-B69 B70-B79 B80-B85 B57, B86-B89 B90-B99 COO-C19 C01 C03-C09 C11-C14 C15-C19 C21-C22 C23-C24 C25-C29 C30-C39 C40 C41 C42-C43 C44 C44 C45 C46 C47-C49 C50

ZAITSEV VARIATION SMYSLOV VARIATION BREYER VARIATION T CHIGORIN DEFENSE

QUEEN'S PAWN GAME

000-005

QUEEN'S GAMBIT

TARTAKOWER DEFENSE

006-069 008-009 010-019 020-029 032-034 035-036 037 038-039 040-042 043-049 052 053-069 056-057 058-059

GRUENFELD DEFENSE

070-099

CATALAN BLUMENFELD COUNTER GAMBIT BOGO-INDIAN DEFENSE QUEEN'S INDIAN DEFENSE

EOO-E09

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENSE

E20-E59 E24-E29 E30-E31 E40-E59

ALBIN COUNTER GAMBIT SLAV QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED TARRASCH EXCHANGE 5.Bf4 VARIATION RAGOZIN SYSTEM SEMI-TARRASCH SEMI-SLAV CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS ORTHODOX DEFENSE LASKER DEFENSE

SAMISCH VARIATION LENINGRAD VARIATION RUBINSTEIN VARIATION

KING'S INDIAN DEFENSE FIANCHETIO VARIATION FOUR PAWN'S ATIACK SAMISCH VARIATION CLASSICAL VARIATION

E10 E11 E12-E19

E60-E99 E62-E69 E76-E79 E80-E89 E90-E99

To Janet, who has my son in her arms (I have them both in mine), and Jeremy, who has my wife in his eyes (I have them both in mine): this book is dedicated.

VOLUME A

VOLUME A

15

16

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1 O. Nd5 Be6 1 1 . Ne7 Qe7 1 2.d5 fg 1 3 .de, and Basman notes that White is a pawn up "in a complex positio n . "

AOO note 1 1 .g4? d5 2 .Bg2 c6 3.h3 e5

SOURCE

M i c h ae l B as m an , Th e Killer Grob ( Oxford : Pergamon Press, 1 991 ) , p.49.

AOO line 1 0 1 .b4 c6 2.Bb2 Qb6 3.a3 as 4.c4 ab 5 .c5 ( +=, BC 0-2) Qc7 6.ab Ra1 (MC0- 1 3 , p.699, now gives the typo 7 . Ra1 ) 7.Ba1

4.e4 Ne7 5.d3 Ng6 6.ed Nh4 7.Kf1 Ng2 8.Kg2 cd etc., and - + ECO. CORRECTION

1 .g4? is ECO's superficial evaluation . If Grob's attack dese rves a question m ark, someone s ho uld explain the reason to I M M ic h a e l B a s m a n a n d o t h e r s t r o n g maste rs . It is true that the first player has more classical options available , and yet we l ive in an age that has seen fo rmer World Champion Karpov, playing White , lose after 1 .e4 a6. A fairer assessm ent of the Grob, therefore , is probably 1 .g4!?oo. T h e po int is worth e m phasizing here , _ we will have m an y occasions to s1nce observe that the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings is far from Holy Writ. IMPROVEMENT

F ro m t h e d i a g r a m 4 . d 4 ! i s m u c h stro nger, so that if 4 . . . ed 5.Qd4 and Black doesn't have 5 . . . Nc6. Basman analyzes many continuations afte r 4 .d4 , but here is a sample line to illustrate the combative nature of this opening: 4.d4 e4 5.c4 Bd6 6.Nc3 Ne7 7.Qb3 0-0 8 . Bg5 f6 9.cd cd

d6 8.e3 b5 9.Nf3 Bg4 1 O.Be2 Nd7 1 1 . 0 - 0 e5 1 2 . h 3 B h 5 1 3 . N h 2 Be2 1 4.Qe2 Ngf6 = MC0-1 3. IMPROVEMENT

M C 0 - 1 3's entire line from the diagram isn't i n ECO, BC0 -2, or any of the four m o�ographs. on this opening cu rrently availabl e . Smce these sources give a slight advantage to White here, it's l ikely t h at M C 0 - 1 3's e x a m p l e doe s n 't rep resent best play. Of course 1 3 .N h2 is w e a k , b u t m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y W h i te s h o u ld play cd anywhe r e from move 8- 1 3 . . One of the m ai n points of this openmg, afte r all, is to exchange wing pawn s for ce nter pawns .

VOLUME A

17

AOO note 1 3 1.Ne3 d5 2.e4 de 3.Ne4 Bf5

CORRECTION

4.Qf3 Qd5 5 .Nd6 Qd6 6.Qf5 Ne6 7.Bb5 Nf6 8.Nf3 e6 9 .Qe5 a6 10.Qd6 ed = ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

4.Ng3, instead of 4 .Qf3, is far superior for White, who in most cases will play a Caro-Kan n with his pawn on d3 rather than d4. Sch lenker-Holzh aue r, Wurttem­ berg 1 982 continued from the diagram : 4 . Ng3 Bg6 5 .N f3 Nd7 (5... e6 6.h4 h6 7.Ne5 and if 7... Bh 7 8. 0f3) 6. Bc4 e6 7 .d3 Bd6 8 .Ne4 Be? 9 .0e2 Ngf6 1 O .Neg5 Nd5 1 1 . Bd2 c 6 1 2 . h 4 h 6 1 3 . N h3 Q c7 1 4 .0-0-0, when van Geet judges Wh ite to h ave a significant edge.

4.Bc4 ! ought to be the mai n line, since Black actually m ust take care not to lose o n the spot. Anker Aasum has chronicled some typical tragedies awaiting the careless, e.g. 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Ng5, or 4.Bc4 Be? 5.Qh5, or 4.Bc4 Bf5 5 .Qf3 Bg6 6. Ng5 Nf6 7.0b3. Black's best may be 4 . . . Nc6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.d3, when he still h as to tread lightly: van Geet analyzes 6 . . . Nf6 7.Neg5 0-0 8.Nf7 Rf7 9 .Ng5 Nd5 1 0 . Nf7 Kf7 1 1 .Qf3 +-. SOURCE

Anker Aasum, 1.Nc3 Sleipner-Eroffnug ( Dusseldorf: Edition M adler, 1 988), p . 1 6.

A01 note 1 22 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Ne6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.c4 de 6.Nf3 eb 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.Be6 be 9.Qe3 Rb8 1 0.Qe6 Bd7 1 1 .Qe2 Nf6 1 2.d3

SOURCE

D.van Geet, The Van Geet Opening (Aikmaar: l nterchess BV, 1 99 0), p.22.

AOO note 1 4 1 .Ne3 d5 2.e4 de 3.Ne4 e5 4.Be4 ! ?

(diagram) Given without comment or evaluation by ECO.

18

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1 2 . 0-0 ..

=

ECO.

2) H e l m u t Warze ch a, 1.b3 Larsen­ N imzowitsch Erottnung ( M a n n h e i m: Rein hold Dreier, 1 988) , pp.62-64 .

CORRECTION

After 1 2 . . . 0 - 0 play s e e m s to favor B lack, e . g . 1 3 .Nbd2 Bb5 1 4 . Rb1 Qe6 1 5 . a4 B a 6 1 6 . e 4 N h 5 1 7 . g 3 f5 , Sully- Botterill, Wales 1 973; or 1 3 .0-0(?) Bb5 1 4. Rd 1 Nd5 1 5 . a3 Ba4 1 6.0a4 Rb2 -+ (Warzecha). I n t h e d i a g r a m m e d position , h oweve r, Black can proceed even more sharply :

A02 note 90 1 .f4 e5 2.fe d6 3.ed Bd6 4. Nf3 g5 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 Ne7 7 .d4 Ng6

BUST

1 2 . . . e4! 1 3 .de Oe4 1 4 .Qe4 (14. Qd2 Ob7 15.Bf6 Qb1 I 1 6. Rb 1 Rb1 1 7.Ke2 Bb5, or

1 4. 0e2 Bb4 15.Bc3 Qb t 1 6. Rb 1 Bc3 1 7. Kd1 Rb t 1 8. Kc2 Rb2 - Warzecha) Ne4 1 5 . Bd4 Bb4 1 6. Kf1

Th ere seems to be some controversy abo ut White's n ext move. ECO g ives 8 . Ng6 a "?", wh ile BC0-2 awards it a " !". Let's see what happens: 8. Ng6 hg 9 .Qd3 Nc6 1 0 .c3 Qe7 1 1 .Bg2 Bf5 1 2 .e4 0 - 0 - 0 (BC0-2 has Black

From here there have been two postal min iatures: 1 ) 1 6 . . . 0-0 1 7 . a4 (1 7.g3! -Heemsoth) Be6 1 8 .Ne5 c5 1 9 .Bb2 f6 20. Nc6 Bc4 2 1 . Kg1 Be1 , 0-1 . Pajares-Rios, corr. 1 989. 2) 1 6 . . . Bb5 1 7.Kg 1 f6 1 8 . Ba7 R b7 1 9 . Bd4 Bd3 20. Nh4 c5 ! , 0- 1 was Dorow­ Aigmuller, corr. 1 980. SOURCES

H e r m a n n H e e m soth , " Mo d e r n 1) Correspondence Miniatures," Fernschach International, Janu ary 1 992, p.29.

playing 12. . . 0-0, an obvious typo, while EGO ends here with -+, though it's hardly that certain) 1 3. Be3 (+= is BC0-2, and Schiller [How to Play the Fromm Gambit, Chess Enterprises, 1 992] cites two postal games continu ing 13... Rde8 14.Nd2, both o f which are see-saw battles that might have gone either way). Now Sch iller prese nts a complex piece of analysis beg i n n ing 1 3 . . . Rh2 1 4 .Rh2 Bg3 1 5 . Kd2 B h 2 1 6 .ef N e 5 , arriving at an equal position nearly 1 5 moves later (incidently, MC0- 1 3 recommends 13.Bf4). Obviously a c o m p ro m i s e i s n e e d e d , s i nce i n practical play the whole variation is totally u nclear ! It is clear, however, that Wh ite is dancing on a volcano if he plays 1 3 .0-0 ( ? ! MC0- 1 3). For example , 1 3 .0-0 :

VOLUME A

19

SOURCES

1 ) Texas Knights, Vol .33, No . 1 (Sep/Oct 1 991 ) , p.1 6. 2) CYB 2/8.

A03 1 i ne 8 1 .f4 d5 2 .Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.b3 c5 5.Bb2 Be7

. . . Ne5 (=+ BC0-2) 1 4.Qd 1 (14. Qe3 - Soltis) Nf3 1 5.Bf3 gf 1 6.Qf3 Rh2 -+, MC0- 1 3, is a typical smash. So 1 3.0-0 is dangerous, but those addicted to adrenalin will want to know if White can su rvive. After 1 3 ... Ne5 1 4 . Q c 2 R h 2 1 5 . K h 2 N f 3 (Pickard­ lnnocencio, Dallas 1 99 1), N M ' s S e lby A n d e r s o n , J i m G a l l ag h e r, a n d The ChessMachine analyze 1 6. Bf3 gf (Minev

suggests 1 6. . . Rh8 1 7. Kg2 Bg3 - ed) 1 7 . Kg 1 ! Bg3 1 8 . Rf3 B e 4 1 9 . Re3 f5 20. Re4 fe 21 .Qg2 Qh4 22.Be3 Bh2 23.Kf1 Rf8 24 .Ke2 Bg3 25. Kd1 ! =, or 1 7 ... Rh8 1 8.Nd2 Rh3 1 9. Rf3 Bg3 20. Rf5 (20.Nf1 ! -ed) Rh1 ! =. SM Joh n Hall however, gives 20 . . . 0h4! 21 .Nf1 R h 1 22.Kg2 Oh3 23.Kf3 Rf1 etc., or 21 .Rf1 Bh2 22. Kh 1 Bg 1 mates next move. On 2 1 .Rf7 Rh1 22 . Kg2 Qh3 23.Kf3 Bh4 24.Kf4 Qg3#. CORRECTION

In summary, whether 1 3.0-0 deserves a " !" or a "? " is stil l uncertai n , but "? !" is fair due to the difficu lty of defending i n practice (postalites excepted ! ) . T h e irony, however, is that Wh ite can profitably avoid the whole issue: IMPROVEMENT

After 1 .f4 e5 2.fe d6 3.ed Bd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 Ne7 7.d4 Ng6 8.Ng6 hg 9.Qd3 Nc6 1 O.c3 Qe7 1 1 . Bg2 Bf5, Wh ite can play 1 2 .0e3! forcing an endgam e. 1 2 . . . Qe3 1 3.Be3 0-0-0 1 4. Kf2 Rh5 1 5.Nd2 Rdh8 1 6.Nf1 was De Ruiter- Dehmeit, carr. 1 990.

20

ft�11 I! �··�

.

%.

...

.z

6.B b5 Bd7 7.a4 0-0 8.0-0 Nc6 9.Bc6 Bc6 1 O.Ne5 Rc8 1 1 .d3 Nd7 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

6.Bd3! from the diagram is White's best try fo r an advantage in this formatio n , unfortunately omitted by EGO, BC0-2, and MC0- 1 3. 6. Bd3 i nitiates an attacking plan worked out i n the 1 9th ce ntu ry, a typical contin uation being 6 . . . Nc6 7 .0-0 a6 8 . Nc3 b5 9 .a4 b4 1 0. N e2 0-0 1 1 .Ng3 N e 8 (Chigorin-Sellman, London 1 883

went 1 1 ...Nd7 12. Nh5 g6 13.Ne5 Nce5 14.fe f5 15.Nf4 +-) 1 2 .Ne5 Bd7 1 3.Nh5 f5 1 4 .g4 g6 1 5 .gf ef 1 6.Rf2 Nf6 1 7 . Rg2 N e5 1 8 .fe N h 5 1 9 . Q h 5 Q e 8 2 0 . K h 1 Qf7 2 1 . Rag1 B e8 22.Qh6 O e6 23.h4 Kh8 24.h5 Rg8 25. Rf1 Bf7 26 .e4 Bf8 27.Qf4 fe 2 8 . Be4 de 29.Qf7 Qh3 30 . Rh2 Qg4 31 .hg Qg6 32 .e6 Bg7 33.Qg6, 1 -0 . SOURCE

Pickard-Tram mel, Dallas 1 99 1 .

E.C.O. BUSTED!

A 03 note 1 1 .f4 d5 2.b3 Nf6 3.Bb2? d4 4.Nf3 c5 5.Ne5 Ng4 -+ ECO. BUST

White should play 5 . e3 ! , when Black h as n o t h i n g b e t t e r t h a n to t r a n s p o s e (strangely enough) into a nearly id entical line given by ECO i n this same n ote : 1 .f4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3 d4 4 . Bc4 !? de 5 .Nf3 ed 6.Nbd2 e6 7.Qe2 After 8 . .. d4

9 . . . de 1 O.Ne3 Nd5 1 1 . Nc4 b6 1 2.c3 Bb7; 9 . . . Qb6 1 O.e4 Bg4 1 1 . Nf2 Bf3 1 2 .Bf3 e5 1 3 .f5 , Hayward-Marfia, co rr. 1 986, and White is doing wel l in each case. ECO's unfavorable view of Wh ite's formation is difficu lt to understand, since h e's playing a classical Dutch (covered in A97-A99} with an extra tempo. SOURCE

with compensation. Actually, Wh ite may h ave m o r e co m p e n satio n i n th e first move-order, si nce Black's pawn on c5 is not helpfu l . SOURCE

Alex Dunne, "The C heck is in the Mail," Chess Life, J u ly 1 989, p.48.

A04 1ine 4 1 .Nf3 f5 2.e4 fe 3.Ng5

Analysis.

A03 note 75 1 .f4 d5 2 .Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 c5 7.Qe1 Nc6 8.Nc3 d4 (diagram) 9.Ne4 Nd5 =+ ECO. IMPROVEMENT

9 . Nd1 ! is far superior to ECO's 9 . Ne4. Correspo ndence M aster Keith Hayward specializes i n Bird's o pe n i ng, and gives the fol lowing possibilities: 9 . . . Re8 1 O . e4 e5 1 1 .fe N e5 1 2 . N e5 ReS 1 3 . Bf4 ReB 1 4 .Qh4 Qb6 1 5 .a4 Bd7 1 6. a5 Qe6 1 7. Bf3 Ng4, Hayward- Bender, corr. 1 985-6;

VOLUME A

21

Nf6 4.d3 d5 5.de h6 6.Nf3 de 7.Qd8 Kd8 8.Ne5 Be6 9.Nc3 Nbd7 1 O.Bf4 c6 + = ECO.

0-0 1 0.Nb3 Nd7 1 1 .c5 a5

=

ECO.

CORRECTION

ECO actually gives 1 o . Nd5 , a clear typo, but 1 o . . . Nd? was probably i ntended. ..

NOVELTY

If Black is not content with a slight endgame disadvantage, he can throw the game i nto chaos by omitting 3 . . . Nf6 and playing 3 . . . d5!? 4 .d3 Qd6 5.de (Piket - Van

Mill, Netherlands Ch. 1 992 varied with 5.Nc3!? h6 6.Nb5 Qc6! 7.de! [7. Qh5 g6 8.Nc7Kd7 -+; 7.Nc7 Qc7 8. Qh5 Kd79.Nf7 Nf6 -+ Piket] hg 8. ed Od7 9. Bg5 a6 1 0.Nc3 e5! 1 1 . Bd3 Be7 1 2. Qf3! Nf6! 13.Bg6 Kd8 1 4.h3 NeB 1 5. B e 7 Qe 7 16.Be8 Ke8 1 7. 0-0-0 Qg5 1 8.Kb1 Bf5 19.g4 Bg6 20.d6 c6 2 1 .h4.oo -Informant 541 1} h 6 6.Qh5 g6 7 .Q h4 c6 8 . Bd3 Bg? 9.Nf3 g5 1 O.Qh5 Kf8 1 1 .0-0 Nd? 1 2 .e5 Ne5 1 3 .Ne5 Be5 1 4 .f4 Bf4 1 5 . Bf4 gf 1 6.Nc3 Nf6 1 7.Qh4 e5 1 8.Ne2 Bg4 1 9 . Nf4 e f 2 0 . h 3 K f ? (2 0 . .. Qe5 2 1 . hg Qg5 22.Qh2oo; 20. . . Kg7 2 1 .hg Ne4 22. Be4 de 23.Rad1oo -Bareev) 2 1 .hg Qe5 22.Qh2 Oe3 23.Kh1 Qg3 24. Rf4 Qh2 25 . Kh2 Kg? 26.Raf1 Rhf8 27.Kg3, and n ow 27 . . . Nd7 offers equal chances according to Bareev.

IMPROVEMENT

From the diagram Black can play 9 . . . a5, and now 1 o.a3 c5 1 1 .Qb3 Qc7 1 2 .Re1 0-0 transposes to a recent game wh ich conti nued 1 3 .e3 ab 1 4 .ab Ra1 1 5 .Ra1 de 1 6 .fe cb 1 7.Qb4 Nf5 1 8 . R e 1 Na6 1 9.Qc3 Nc5 20.Qc2 Rd8 21 . Bf1 e4 -+ 22 .de Ng3 23 . Bg7 Nf1 24 . Ba1 N h 2 25.Nh2 Qg3 26.Kf1 (26.Kh 1 Rd2 -ed) Qh2 27.0c3 f6, 0-1 . Much better, don't you think? SOURCE

Gulko-N ikolic, Reykjavik 1 99 1 .

A 1 0 note 35 1 .c4 f5 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 fe 4.Ne4 Nf6

SOURCE

Informant 52/2 .

A09 note 40 1 .Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 g6 4.Bb2 Bg7 5.g3 b6 6.Bg2 Bb7 7.0-0 e5 8.d3 Ne7 9.Nbd2

5.Ng3 Nc6 6.Nf3 e5 7 .Be2 Bc5 8.0-0 d6 9.a3 a5 1 0.b3 0-0 1 1 .Bb2 Bg4 1 2.h3 Bf3 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

W h ite c a n p l a y m o re s h a r p l y b y fo l lo w i n g S e rp e r ' s analysis fro m the diagram with 5 . Bd3! Be? 6.Nf3 Ne4!?

(6... 0-0?! 7.Nf6 Bf6 8.h4! Qe8 9. 0c2 h6

22

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1 0.Bh 7 Kh8 1 1 . Bg6 Qe7 12.d4 d5 13.Be3 Qb4 1 4. Bd2! Qc4 1 5. Bc3, followed by g4-g5) 7 . Be4 d5 8 . Bb 1 !? Nc6 (8. . . 0-0 ?! 9.h4!, threatening 1 0.Bh7; 8 ... dc 9. Qa4 Nc6 1 0. Qc4 Qd5 1 1 . Qg4 g6 12.Be4 and 13.h4) 9 . Qe2 Bf6 1 0 .cd Qd5 1 1 . Be4=.

A 1 3 l ine 1 1 1 .c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 de

SOURCE

Informant 54/5 .

A 1 1 note 38 1 .c4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 g6 5.b3 Bg7 6.Bb2 0-0 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.d3 Rea 9.N bd2 e5 1 o.e3 e4 1 1 .Ne1 N c5 1 2 .cd cd 1 3.de de 1 4 .Rc1 Bg4

5.Na3 Ba3 6.ba 0-0 7.Qc2 Nd5 8.Qc4 b6 9.Bb2 Bb7 1 0.0-0 Nd7 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

A move not considered by ECO is 5.Ne5 ! , which poses Black a set of new p ro bl e m s . l l ijc- A . P e t rosian, Novi Sad 1 988 continued 5 . . . Qd4 (for 5. . . c5 see Informant 4 118) 6.f4 Nbd7 7 .0a4 Rb8 8.Nc3 a6 9.Qc4 Qd6 (9... Qc4 ? 1 0.Nc4 b5 1 1 .Na5) 1 O.d4 c5 1 1 . Be3! b5 1 2.Qd3 c4 1 3 .0d2 Bb? 1 4 . Bb7 Rb7 1 5 .0-0 Nb6 1 6 .a3 Be7 1 7 .f5! N bd5 1 8 . Bf4 ! Nf4 1 9.Rf4 ( 1 9. Qf4!? ef 20. Rad1 g6 2 1 . e4) 0-0 20 .0c2 Nd5 2 1 .Rf3 Qb6 22 .e3 f6 23.Ng4 Nc3 24.bc +-. Notes by Lebron .

1 5 .Qc2 Rc8= ECO. BUST

Fro m the diagram White has 1 5 . Bf6 ! Bd 1 1 6 . Bd8, gaining the advantage afte r 1 6 . . . Be2 ( 1 6... Rad8 1 7.Rd1 Bc3 1 8.Rc1 !) 1 7 . Rc5 Rad8 1 8 .Ne4.

SOURCE

Informant 46/1 2 .

SOURCE

O s n o s , The Reti Opening ( R u ssian edition}, p . 1 72.

A 1 6 note 70 1 .c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.cd Nd5 4.Nf3 g6 5.Qa4 Bd7 6.Qh4 Nc3 7.dc Nc6 8.e4

VOLUME A

23

h6 9.Be3 es 1 o.Od8 Rd8 1 1 .0-0-o fS? ! 1 2 .Nh4 Kf7 1 3.Bc4 Kg7 1 4 .ef gf 1 5.f4 +· ECO. BUST

ECO notes that Black's 1 1 th is a weak move , but offe rs no alternative . After 8 . e 4 , howe v e r, B lack e q u a l i z ed co mfo rtab ly i n E s te b an - K rase n ko v, Palma de M al lo rca 1 9 89 with 8 . . . e5 9.Qd8 Rd8 1 O . Bc4 f6 1 1 . b4 a5 1 2 . a3 Ra8 1 3. R b 1 Bd6 1 4. Be3 Ke? 1 5 . N d2 ab 1 6 .ab Ra3 =.

NOVELTY

P s a k h i s - G r e e n f e l d , Is r a e l 1 9 9 1 demon strates a recent handling of the p o s i tio n , w h ich proceeded fro m the d iag ram with 1 3.Qc5 d6 1 4 .Qa5 Qd? 1 5 .f4 Nc6 1 6.Qa3 Nee? (1 6. . . e5 1 7.Bd3

0-0 18.0-0 ef 1 9. Rf4 Nfe7 20.Rd1 Ng6 2 1 . R ff 1 +=1+- Kasparo v-Belya vsky, Linares 1 99 1 -ed) 1 7 .0-0-0 Qc6 1 8 .Qb3 Bd? 1 9. Rg 1 d5 20.g4 Nd6 2 1 .cd Nd5 2 2 . Rd5 ed 2 3 . Bg2 Ne4 24 . R e 1 Rc8 2 5 . K b 1 B e 6 2 6 . N e4 de 2 7 . Be4 Bb3 28. Bc6 Kf? 29. Be4 Bc4 30.b3 Bb5 31 . Bd5 Kg6 , 1 /2- 1 /2 .

SOURCE SOURCE

Informant 48/1 0 .

Informant 54/1 9 .

A 1 9 l ine 1 0

A21 note 1

1 .c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 cs 4.e5 Ng8 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.d4 cd 7.Nd4 NeS 8.Ndb5 a6 9 . N d 6 B d 6 1 O . Q d 6 f6 1 1 . B e3 N e 7 1 2.Bb6 Nf5

1 3.Bd8 Nd6 1 4.Bc7 Ke7 1 5 .c5 Ne8 1 6.Bb6 d5 = ECO . . followin g strangely .

with 1 7.cd Nd6 1 8 . Bc5 Nd? ( 1 8... b6/?oo) 1 9 .Ba3 b6 20.0-0-0 Nc5 2 1 .Na4 Na4 22 .Rd6 Kf? 23.b3 Nc3 24. R b6 a5 25. Bc4 Na2 26.Kb2 Nb4 27. Bb4 ab 28 .Rd1 +­ (note 53). In any case, BC0-2's 1 8 . . . Nf7 improves and Kasparov considers White to have compensation , but no more, in this gambit.

24

1 .c4 eS 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Nd5 BaS 4.b4 c6 S.ba cd 6.cd Nf6

7 . Qa4 N d S 8 . Nf3 N c 6 9 . N e5 Qf6 1 0 . B b2 Ne5 1 1 . Qe4 d6, with compen sation -ECO. BUST

Soltis (Beating the English [Dallas: Chess Digest, 1 993], p.BO) poi nts out that instead of 8 .Nf3 Wh ite can play 8.Qe4 ! , win n ing h is pawn back while keeping the two Bishops and better pawn structu re. Black n eeds to play 7 . . . 0-0.

E.C.O. BUSTED!

IMPROVEMENT

As R i b l i n o tes i n Winning with the English ( Batsfo rd , 1 9 92 ) , Wh ite now u n derstands that his p l ay s h o u ld be directed toward the center rather than the Q u ee n s ide. The refore, Kristiansen­ Rausis, D e n m ark 1 989 co nti n u ed from the d iagram with 7 . Qb3! 0-0 (7. . . Qa5

8. Nf3 e4 [8 . . . d6 9. Ba3] 9.Nd4 Od5 1 O. Od5 Nd5 1 1 . Ba3 + - Minev) 8 . Nf3 Rea (perhaps the critical position for this variation, according to Mine v. Some suggest 8. . . d6 9. Ba3 Ne4) 9 . e3 Q a5 1 0 .d6! Ne4? ! 1 1 . Bd3 Nd6 1 2 . Ba3 e4 1 3 . Bd 6 ed 1 4 . Rc1 N c 6 1 5 . Rc5 Q b4 ( 1 5 . . . Qd8 1 6. R f5 Re6 1 7. Ng5 R f6 1 8.Nf7 -Minev) 1 6 . R e5 ! ! Re5 1 7 . B b4 Rb5 1 8 .a3, 1 - 0 . NOVELTY

B h3 1 1 .Bh3 Ne4 1 2.Ne4 Bb2 1 3.Qb2 Re4 1 4.0-0 aea 1 5.e3 as 1 6.Bg2 += ECO. BUST

In view of the above com m e nts , a more recent game saw an interesting n ew try by Black: after 1 .c4 e5 2 .Nc3 Bb4 3.Nd5 he played 3 . . . a5 !? , and the game continued 4.a3 Bc5 5 . e3 Nf6 6.d4 Nd5 7.cd ed 8 .ed Be? 9 . Bd3 d6 1 O . h3 Nd7 1 1 .Ne2 Nb6 1 2 . Nc3 0-0 1 3.0-0 Bd7oo. SOURCES

1 ) N iko l ay M i n ev, " M i n e v o n Tactics," Inside Chess, Vo l .3 , N o . 1 3 ( J u n e 9 , 1 9 90 ) , p . 2 0 . I n ci d e n ta l ly, for a good exam p l e of B l ack g e tt i n g p u m m e l ed aft e r 6 . . . Q a5 7 . e 4 ! , c h e c k y o u r database fo r l vanov- R hode, N e w Yo rk 1 99 0 .

B l ack cam e prepared i n G u revich ­ Ada m s , M u rcia 1 99 0 , wh ich co nti n u ed fro m the d i agram with 1 0 . . . d5 ! 1 1 . N d5

( 1 1 . cd Bh3 12. Bh3 Nd5 1 3. Nd5 Bb2 1 4 . Q b 2 Q d5 1 5 . 0 - 0 Nd4) B h 3 1 2 . B h 3 ( 1 2. N f6 B f6 1 3 . 0d8 Bb2 ! 1 4. 0d1 Bg2 - + +) Ne4 1 3 . Qc 1 Nd4 ! 1 4 . e 3 c 6 1 5 . N f4 g 5 1 6 . N h 5 Q a 5 1 7 . Kf1 N d 2 1 8 . Kg2 Qe5 1 9 . e d Q e4 2 0 . K g 1 N f3 2 1 . Kf 1 N d 4 ! 2 2 . R g 1 Q e 2 2 3 . Kg2 Qf3 2 4 . Kf 1 R e 2 25 . R g2 (25 . B d4 B d4 2 6 . 0 g 5 Kh 8) R f 2 2 6 . K g 1 N e 2 2 7 . K h 1 N c 1 2 8 . R c1 B b 2 , 0 - 1 (notes based on anno ta tions by Gure vich) . SOURCE

2) Dan ielian- Maljutin , J u rmala 1 99 1 .

I n s ide C h e ss, Vo l . 3 , N o . 2 5 - 2 6 ( December 29, 1 990), pp.34-35 .

A21 note 83

A25 note 70

1 .c4 es 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 ed 4.Qd4 Nc6 5.Qd2 g6 6.b3 Bg7 7.Bb2 Nf6 8.g3 0-0 9 . Bg2 ReB 1 O.Nh3

1 .c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 s.e4 d6

VOLUME A

25

SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vo l.5, No .3 ( February 1 7, 1 992) , p . 1 2 .

A27 note 60 1 .c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 4.d4 e4 5.Ng5 h6 6.Nh3 g5 7.f3 ef a.ef Bg7 9.d5

6.Nge2 h5 7.d3 h4 8.f3 Nd4 9.Nd4 ed 1 O.Ne2 as 1 1 .Bd2 c6 1 2.Rc1 Of6 = + ECO. BUST 1)

Since Wh ite clearly doesn't stand worse in the diagram med positio n , we m u st conclude that h is play can be improved. I ndeed, Seirawan-Loek van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1 992 went 6.d3 h5 7.h4! (here

Seirawan notes that it will be difficult for either player to advance his f-pawn) Bg4 8.f3 Be6 9.Nge2 a6 1 0 .0-0 Nh6 1 1 . Nd5 0-0 1 2. Be3 f5 1 3 .Qd2 Kh 7 1 4 . Rac1 Rf7 1 5.b4 Qd7. Now Seirawan gives 1 6 .a4 ! a5 1 7.b5 Nd8 1 8 . Kh 2 b6 1 9 . Ng 1 ! with good play for White. IMPROVEMENT

Black can , however, get a good position after 6.d3 in the game cited above . Sei rawan analyzes 6 . . . Nd4 7 . Nge2 Ne2! 8.Qe2 Ne7, followed by . . .c6, . . . Be6, and . . . d5 or . . . f5 .

(after 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bgl 5.e4 d6 6.Nge2 h5) is dubious as well, given Seirawan's continuation of 7 . . . h4 8.g4 Bh6!. Black will exchange his bad Bishop, " . . . leaving lots of ho les in White's position."

26

+=

BUST

Seirawan-Browne , Lo n e Pine 1 979 saw 9 . . . Qe7! 1 O . Kd2 Nd4 1 1 . Bd3 Kd8 1 2.Ng1 b 5 ! 1 3 . N g e 2 (13. cb a 6 1 4 . ba Ba6

15.Nge2 is Browne's attempt at "damage control'� be 1 4 . Bc4 Qc5 1 5 . Kd3? (15.b3 -Browne) Rb8 1 6. Be3 Qc4 1 7. Kc4 Ba6 1 8 . N b5 N b5 , 0 - 1 . S m a l l wo nder th at Browne suggests a more conservative approach with 9 . Be3 . IMPROVEMENT

BUST 2)

EGO's reco mendation of 7.h3

Nd4 1 O.Be3 c5 1 1 .Qd2 d6 1 2.f4 ECO.

+=

Virtually all rece nt games with th is line feature Wh ite playing 7.Ng1 , plan ning h4, e . g . 7 . . . Bg7 8 .e3 Nf6 9.h4, with complex play. SOURCE

Chess Life, December 1 992, p .39.

E.C.O. BUSTED!

A28 note 63 1 .c4 eS 2.Nc3 N c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bb4 5.Nd5 e4 !

BUST

Neto-Hansen, Novi Sad 1 990 continued

6.Nb4 N b4 7.Nd4 cS 8.Nb5 dS 9.cd 0-0 1 O.a3 Nd3 1 1 .Bd3 ed 1 2.b3 QdS 1 3.0-0 Qg5 1 4.f3 Bd7 1 5. Nc3 hS =+ ECO IMPROVEMENT

I n Salov-Gelfand, Linares 1 992 White p l ayed t h e s i m pl e 6 . N g 1 , and afte r 6 . . 0 - 0 7 . Qc2 R e S 8 . N e 2 B d 6 9 . a3 b5!? (9. . . Ng4! ? 1 O. h3 Nh2= -RCR), the editors of Russian Chess Review g ive 1 O.Ng3!=, or Wh ite can accept the gambit with 1 0.cb ( 1 0. Nf6 0f6 1 1 .cb Ne5 12.0e4 .

Bb7! 1 3. Qc2 Ng4 with the initiative -NIC 25, p. 158) Ne5 1 1 . N ec3 Bb7 1 2 . Nf6 Qf6, and B l ack h as co m pe n s ation fo r the pawn.

(the players having earlier inserted the moves Rb1 and f6 - which doesn 't seem to influence the following sequence) 1 2 ... Bd5! 1 3.Nd5 Nd5 1 4.Bb2 a4! 1 5.Bd4 ed 1 6.Bd5 Qd5 1 7.Qc1 Bc5 1 8.Qc4 c6!, with advantage to Black according to Ribli. Another good conti nuation from the diagram is 1 2 . . .c6! leading to at least eq uality. (see CYB 611 9-20 for detailed notes). SOURCE

R i b l i a n d Kal l a i , Winn ing with the English, pp. 1 32-33.

A30 line 1 5 1 .c4 cS 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 e6 6.Nc3 Be7 7 .d4 cd 8.Qd4 d6 9.b3 Nbd7

SOURCE

RCR 1 /24.

A29 note 55 1 .c4 e S 2.Nc3 N c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 dS S.cd NdS 6.Bg2 Nb6 7.0-0 Be7 8.d3 0-0 9.a3 Be6 1 0.b4 as ? 1 1 .b5 Nd4 1 2 .Nd2! +- ECO.

VOLUME A

27

1 0 .e4 a6 1 1 . B b 2 0 - 0 1 2 . h 3 Q b8 1 3.Nd2 Bc6 1 4.a4 Re8 1 5.Kh2 Bf8 1 6.f4 += ECO.

SOURCE

R i b l i a n d K a l l a i , Winning with the English, pp.65-67

IMPROVEMENT

Wh ite can go di rectly for the th roat with 1 O . N b5 !? as i n Ko rtchnoi-G r e e n f e l d , B e e r s h e b a 1 9 9 0 . T h at g a m e w e n t 1 O . . . N c5 1 1 . Rd 1 N f e 4 (what else ?

1 1 ... d5?! failed in Kortchnoi-Hjartarson, St. John 1988) 1 2 .Qg7! (Ribli considers 12.b4 to be worthy of attention as well) Bf6 1 3.Qh6 Ba1 1 4.Ng5 ! !

A30 note 83 1 .c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 e6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.d4 cd 8.Qd4 d6 9.e4 0-0 1 O.Rd1 a6

z�· m .

�-

"'1
- Go fs h tein) N b2 1 9 . gf R f 7 2 0 . Kb2 Qc3 2 1 . Kb 1 , w h e n G ofshte i n gives 21 . . . R e5 ! ? 22.Bf6 Bf6 23 .R hf1 oo .

better. He suggests Black m ight improve with 1 6 . . . Rc8 or 1 6 . . . Bh6 1 7.Qh6 Rc8, but offers no examples (Chess Life, January 1 99 1 , p.49). The question is probably moot, though, since White's play in EGO's m a i n l i n e can b e stre n g th e n ed . Continuing from the d iagram into note 1 00 we find 1 6. Bd4 Be6 1 7.h5 a5 1 8 .hg hg 1 9 .a4 Rb4 20 .Rh4 b5 2 1 . Nb5 Oc4

SOURCE

Informant 54/2 1 5.

B79 1ine 1 7 1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7 .f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 1 0.0-0-0 Qa5 1 1 .Bb3 Rfc8 1 2 .Kb1 Ne5 1 3 .h4 N c4 1 4 .Bc4 Rc4 1 5 .Nb3 Qc7 (diagram) and now ECO considers o nly 1 6.Bd4 and 1 6.h5. NOVELTY

22 .Nc3 R ab8 23.Rdh1 Qc8oo ECO. IMPROVEMENT

1 6.Bh6!?. This natural continuation goes u n m e ntion ed i n t h e books, possi b ly because of the stock sacrifice 1 6 . . . Bh6 1 7.Qh6 Rc3 1 8 .bc Qc3 . However, IM Jack Peters analyzes 1 9 . Rd3 Oc7 20.Qd2 Rca 21 . Kb2, plan n ing 22.Rc3 , whe n White is

I n s te ad of 2 2 . Nc3 t?"

Informant 451260, referring to the game cited here by EGO), White should play 22. Rdh1 !+­ according to Schroder. -

SOURCE

Informant 45/260

VOLUME B

93

9.Qd2 Qb6 1 O.Nb3 a6 1 1 .0-0-0 Bd7 1 2 .f4 Qc7 1 3.Bg2

879 note 79 1 .e4 c5 2 .Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 1 0.0-0-0 Qa5 1 1 .Bb3 Rfc8 1 2 .Kb1 Ne5 1 3 .h4 Nc4 1 4 .Bc4 Rc4 1 5.h5

0-0-0 1 4.h4 Be7 1 5 .Bf3 K b8 1 6.h5 Bc8 1 7.Qe3 Ne8 1 8.Rhg1 Bg5 1 9.Rg 5 + = ECO. NOVELTY Rc3! 1 6.bc Nh5 1 7.g4 Nf6 1 8.Nb3 Qb5 ! 1 9.c4 Qc4 20.e5 Ne8oo ECO. BUST

It is difficult to u nderstand why ECO recommends th is line for Black when as pointed out by NM Selby Anderso n , Bl ck can play 1 5 . . . N h 5 i n the diagram m ed positio n . I n that case ECO refers us to note 91 , wh ich goes 1 5 . . . N h5 1 6.g4 Nf6 1 7 . N b3 Q d 8 1 8 . e 5 N g 4 ! 1 9 . fg B g4 20. Rdg1 de 21 .Qd8 Rd8 22 .Nd2 Rc3 23.bc h5 24.Rh2 b6 -+. Therefore it seems that 1 5 . . . Rc3 is an error si nce Black has the 1 5 ... Nh5 line avail able.

a

I n G u d j e v - P i ac h e t k a , 9 t h C o r r . Olympiad, 1 978-9 Black left h is King i n the center, with interesting resu lts. From the diagram play co ntin ued 1 3 . . . b5 ! ? 1 4 .h4 Rca 1 5.e5 ! ? de 1 6. Bf6 gf 1 7.Ne4 Be7 1 8 . N bc5 Nd4 1 9. Kb 1 ! (not 1 9.Nd7 Qdl

20.c3 b4 ! 2 1 .Kb 1 be 22.bc Qb5 23. Ka 1 Qa4 with counterplay -Gudjev) Bc6 20 .c3, and now 20 . . . Nf5! is unclear, according to Gudjev. SOURCE

" Po rtrait: M lade n Gudjev," Fernschach International, J an u ary 1 992, p . 1 0.

881 note 6

SOURCE

S e l b y A n d e r s o n , " 1 9 9 0 Te x a s Championship," Texas Knights, Vol .3 1 , No.6 (Ju i/Aug 1 990), p . 1 3 .

881 l ine 1 3

IMPROVEMENT

1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4 h6 7.g5 hg 8.Bg5 Nc6

94

1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4 e5 7.Nf5 h5 8.g5 Ne4 9.Ng7 Bg7 1 0.Ne4 d5 1 1 .Ng3 (diagram) Bg4 1 2.Be2 Qd7 1 3. N h5 Bh5 1 4.Bh5 Nc6 1 5 .Bg4 Qd6 += ECO.

M ark G i n sb u rg s uggests that B l ack develop with 1 1 . . . Nc6 ! , e.g. 1 2.Nh5 R h5! 1 3 .Qh5 Nd4, with a possible co ntin uation

E.C.O. BUSTED!

BUST

Wh ite began scoring heavily from the diag ram once 1 3 .Rd4! was discovered. N o w 1 3 . . . e d 1 4 . B d 4 B c5 (14 ... Bg7

15.Bd3! Qe7 16.Rg 1 ! Nh5 1 7.Bg7 Ng7 1 8. 16 Qe5 1 9. fg Qg 7 20. R e 1 with compensation) 1 5 .Bc5 Nc5 1 6. Bc4.

After 11 .Ng3

being 1 4 .Qd 1 Bf5 1 5 . Bd3 e4 1 6.Be2 e3 1 7 . Bd3 e2 and wins. SOURCE

M ark Gi nsburg, "Chess Ope n ings for Heros," Chess Annual 1 ( Los Ange les : Players Chess News, 1 982} , pp.57-58.

881 note 70 1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4 a6 7 .Be3 e5 8.Nf5 g6 9.g5 gf 1 0.ef d5 1 1 .Qf3 d4 1 2.0-0-0 Nbd7

H e re we have 1 6 . . . Bd7 1 7. R e 1 Kf8 1 8.0e3 +-, and 1 6 . . . 0-0 1 7.Rd1 ! Bd7 1 8 .Q e3 ReB 1 9 .gf. For 1 6 . . . Qd4 see Info rma n t 46/2 9 7 . B l ack, h oweve r, see m ed to have found the right path in G ip s l i s- Rastj a n i s , corr. 1 988-89 with 1 6 . . . Qe7! 1 7.gf Qe5! 1 8.Rd1 ! Bf5! 1 9 . Rd5 Qe1 20.Rd1 Qe5 2 1 .Rd5 Qe1 22.Rd1 , 1 /2- 1 /2 . Notes based on annotations by G i pslis. SOURCE

CYB 3/1 48 . N ote : for those who like whipping a dead horse, it seems that EGO's line is busted in more ways than o ne. I nstead of 1 1 .Qf3, l e t ' s s u b s t i t u t e 1 1 . g f a n d fo l l o w Kotro n ias-J .Arnaso n , R eykjavik 1 992, which went 1 1 . . .d4 1 2 .Bc4 Qc7 (12... 016 1 3. B d 2 Q c7 1 4 .gf d e 1 5 . B c3 Qc6 1 6.Bg2 Qf3 1 7 .Bf3 Bh6 1 8 .Kb1 Bf4 1 9 .Rhe1 Nf6 20.Be5 Be5 21 .Re5 Kf8 22.Rd8 Kg7 23.Rh8 Kh8 24.Rc5 Kg7 -++ ECO.

1 3. Nd5 Qc6 14.Bd4! Bb4! 15.c3 Qc4 1 6. Be3 Bel 1 7.Nb6 Qc6 1 8.Rg 1 Bd8 19.Na8 b5 20. 0h5 OaB 21. 0-0-0, with compensation) 1 3 . Q d 3 d e (13... Bb4 1 4. 0 - 0 - 0 Bc3 / ?oo) 1 4 . 0 - 0 - 0 N c 6 1 5 . Rh e 1 , and now 1 5 . . . Bb4oo should have

VOLUME B

95

been played instead of 1 5 . . . cb?. Notes by Amason from Informant 54/220 .

882 note 1 9

881 note 80

1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.f4 a6 7 .Bd3 Nbd7 8.0-0 Qb6 9.Be3! Qb2 1 0.Ncb5 ab 1 1 .Nb5 Ra5 !oo ECO.

1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4 a6 7 .g5 Nfd7 8.Be3 b5 9.a3 Nb6 1 0.Rg1 N8d7 1 1 .f4 Bb7 1 2.f5 e5 1 3. Ne6 fe 1 4.Qh5 Ke7 1 5 .fe Ke6 1 6.0-0-0 Ke7 1 7.g6 Nf6 1 8.Bg5

BUST

Qe8 1 9.Bh4 Nbd7 20.Bh3 Kd8 21 .Bd7 Kd7 22.Bf6 gf 23.Qf5 Qe6 24.g7 Qf5 25.gh:Q Bh6 26.Kb1 Be4 27 .Rg7 +­ ECO. BUST

This line is based on G M Shamkovich's a n a l y s i s of h i s g a m e w i t h B e n k o , Pasadena 1 978 . I n an article for Chess Life, however, Shamkovich writes that subsequent research has prompted him to reverse his earlier opi n ion. From the diagram Shamkovich gives 1 8 . . . Kd7 ! 1 9 .Bh3 Kc7 20. Bf6 Qf6 2 1 . Rdf1 Qd8 22. Rf7 Kb8 23 . Q h 7 R h ? 24.gh Q h 4 ! 25.Rf8 Ka7 26.h8=0 Qh8 27.R h8 Rh8, with "a balanced endgame". SOURCE

Shamkovich and M addox, "A C h ess Terrorist's Guide to the Sicilian ," Chess Life, October 1 990, pp.37-38.

96

Bl ack is virtu ally lost, as th e game Anand- Kasparov, Tilburg 1 99 1 illu strates: 1 2 . R b 1 R b5 ( 1 2. . . Qa2 13. Nc3 Qa3 1 4 . Rb3 +-) 1 3 . R b2 R b2 1 4 . Qa1 Rb6 (14 . . .Rb4 15. Qc3) 1 5 .Bb6 Nb6 1 6.Qc3 Be7 1 7 .Rb1 Nfd7 1 8.Qg7 Bf6 1 9.Qh6 Ke7 20. Bb5 Rg8 2 1 .Rd1 e5 22 .f5 Nc5 23.Rd6 Bg5 24.Qh7 Ne4 25 . R b6 Rd8 26.Bd3 Be3 27. Kf1 Bb6 28. Be4 Rd4 29.c3, 1 -0 . Notes based on com me nts by Ftacnik. SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vol .4 No.23 (November

25, 1 991 ), p.28.

882 note 1 1 0 1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.f4 Nc6 7.Be3 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 a6 1 O.g4 0-0 1 1 .g5 Nd7 1 2.Rg1 b5 1 3.Qh5 b4

E.C.O. BUSTED !

23 . Bg7 Rg7 (23. . . b3 24. Rg6 ba 25. Qh7) 24 .f5 b3 (24 ... Re8 25.fg hg 26.Rg6 Re7 27.Bh3). N o w G M J o e l B e n j a m i n suggests 25.a3! be 26.Bc4, or 25 . . . Re8 26 . Bc4 . Any takers? SOURCE

Joel Be njam i n , "Theo retical l y Speaking," Chess Life, April 1 991 , p.1 0. McKen na and Benjami n explore these possibilities m uch more deeply than is i ndicated here. It's worth digging th rough back issues to have a look!

��

� · ·� :1:" . . ' . . z

1 4.Nce2 g6 1 5.Qh6 Re8 1 6.Rg3 Bf8 1 7.Qh4 Nc5oo ECO. NOVELTY

I n th e d iagram med position Wh ite would naturally like to p lay 1 4 .Nd5, but in neither ECO nor BC0-2 does Kasparov offer a clue as to what m ight happen . However, in The Sicilian Sche veningen, c o ­ authored by N ikitin (3rd Ed., Batsford 1 992, p. 1 3 7}, K a s p a r o v g i v e s th e following variatio n : 1 4.Nd5 ed 1 5 .Nc6 Qc6 1 6 .ed Qc7 1 7 .Bd4 N c5 !

885 note 1 26 1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 a6 7.0-0 Be7 8.f4 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 1 0.Qe1 Qc7 1 1 .Kh1 Bd7 1 2.0g3 b5 1 3.e5 de 1 4.fe Ne5 1 5.Bh6 Ne8 1 6.Bf4 Bd6

1 7 .Ne4 N c4 1 8.Bd6 Ncd6 1 9.Bd3, with compensation - ECO. IMPROVEMENT

1 8 . B g 7 ! Bf5 ! - + . B u t analysis by Alex M c K e n n a , p u b l i s h ed i n Chess Life, s h o w s t h at W h i te ' s p o s i t i o n i n t h e diagram i s not yet exh austed . McKe n n a spotted 1 8 .Qh6! f6 1 9 .gf Bf6 2 0 . Bf6 Rf7 2 1 . R d 2 B f 5 (2 1 . . . Ne4 22. Bg 7 Rg 7 23. Rdg2) 2 2 . Rdg2 Bg6 (22. . . g6 23. Rg6)

Writing to Chess Life, John Caliguire d r a w s a tt e n t i o n to 1 7 . B b5 ! i n t h e d iagram m ed position . Now Wh ite can recover his gambit pawn and retain the i nitiative - securing two passed pawn s. GM Evans analyzes 1 7 .Bb5! ab 1 8 .Ndb5

VOLUME B

97

Bb5 1 9 .Nb5 Qc2 20 . Nd6, when " . . . White seems to keep an edge ." SOURCE

Go l u bev. W h at we h ave h e re is an example of chess o n the very edge. SOURCE

Larry Evans, " Evans on C hess ," Chess Lite, December 1 992, p. 1 4.

N I C 26, p . 1 4 .

B88 1ine 1 3

B87 1ine 9 1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bc4 a6 7.Bb3 b5 8.0-0 Bb7 9.Re1 N bd 7 1 O . B g 5 Q b 6 1 1 .a4 b4 1 2 .Nd5 ed 1 3.ed

Ne5 1 4.f4 0-0-0 1 5.fe de 1 6.Re5 Bc5 1 7.c3 Rhe8, with compe nsatio n -ECO. NOVELTY

I f Black is feeling co nfident he can make Wh ite l o o k fo r co m p e n s at i o n w i t h 1 3 . . . Kd8 ! ? , when Golubev-M antovan i , B i e l 1 992 went 1 4 . Nc6 Kc7 (14 ... Bc6

15.dc Oc6 1 6.Bd5 Oc8 1 7. Qh5!? Be7 {1 7. . . Kc 7!? 1 8.Bf6 Nf6! 1 9. Qf7 Kb8 20.Ba8 Ka8 oo} 1 8.0f7 Nd5 1 9.Be7 Ne7 20.Re7 Oc6 2 1 .Rae 1 Kc8 22. Qg7 Rd8 23.Qh7oo) 1 5.a5 Qb5 1 6.Nd4 Qc5 1 7. Be3 Bd5 (1 7... Nd5!? 1 8.Ne6 fe 1 9.Bc5 Nc5 20.Re6!? Ne621.Bd5 with compensation) 1 8 .c4 be 1 9.Rc1 ! . Now best was 1 9 . . . Bb3! 20 .Qb3 Nd5!? 2 1 . Rc3 ! ! (21 .Ne6 te 22.Bc5 Nc5 with compensation) Nc3 2 2 .Qf7, a g a i n w i th c o m p e n s at i o n . N o t e s co m p ressed ( ! ) f r o m a n n o tatio n s by

98

1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.Bb3 aS 8.Be3 Be7 9.f4 0-0 1 0.Qf3 Nd4 1 1 .Bd4 b5

1 2 .e5 de 1 3.Be5 Qb6 1 4.0-0-0 Bb7 1 5 .Qg3 Rad8 =+ ECO. BUST

F ro m the diagram Wh ite can continue as i n M o rosevich- M itenkov, M oscow 1 991 with 1 2 . Bf6! Bf6 1 3 .e5 Bh4 1 4 .g3 Rb8

(14 ... 0b6 1 5.gh de 1 6.te Bb7 1 7.Qt2 Oc7 1 8.Rf1 + - was Michalek-Bagaturov, Brno 1 99 1) 1 5 . 0 - 0 - 0 ! B b 7 1 6 . N e 4 B e 4

1 7 .0e4 d5 1 8 .Qd3 Be? 1 9 .h4 Qa5 20.f5! b4 2 1 .Qf3 Kh8 22.f6 gf 23.ef Bd6 24.g4 Rg8 25.g5 Qc5 26. Rhg1 Be? 27. Rg2 Bb6 28 . Rd3 Qd6 29. Rdd2 Be? 30. Rg4 Qe5 3 1 . Re2 Qd6 32.Kd1 (32.h5 ? Rg5! -RCR) R b 5 3 3 . h5 d4 34 . g 6 h g 3 5 . h g R h 5 36.Rg5 ! , 1 -0 . SOURCE

RCR 1 /1 67.

E.C.O. BUSTED!

889 note 9 1 .e4 cs 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7 .Be3 a6 8.Qe2 Qc7 9.Bb3 Na5 1 0 .g4 b5 1 1 .g5 Nd7 1 2 .0-0-0 Nc5 ! ?

1 3.Rf1 Rb8 1 4.a3 Bd7 1 5.f5 ef 1 6.ef as 1 7.Bg5 Bc6 =+ ECO. BUST

Given without com m ent or evaluation by ECO. CORRECTION

A game is now available by wh ich we can judge 1 2 . . . N c5 ! ? , a n d it makes 1 2 . 0-0-0 look suspicious. Araham iya­ Le rner, H elsinki 1 992 saw the furth e r 1 3 .a3 ( 1 3. f4 ? b4 1 4. Na4 Bd7 -+, or 13.Bd5?! ed 1 4.Nd5 Ob7 -+ Lerner) Bb7 1 4 . Ba2 Ne4 . Now instead of 1 5 . Ncb5? as actually played, Le rne r g ives 1 5 .Ne4 Be4 1 6 . Rh e 1 (16. f3 Bb7 1 7.Bd2 Nc4 -+) d5 ! 1 7 .f3 Bg6 1 8 . Bd5 ReB when B lack has strong counterplay. SOURCE

Informant 55/259.

I n stead of 1 3 .Rf1 ( ?) Wh ite needs to get o n w i t h h i s p r o g r a m : 1 3 .f5 ! , as i n Lukin-Sh irov, Daugavpils 1 989, is much more to the point. That game went 1 3 . . . ef 1 4 .ef Bf5 1 5 .g4 Be6 1 6.g5 Nd7 1 7 .Qh5 Bf5 ? ! (1 7... Ne5) 1 8 .Rf1 Bg6 1 9 .Qd1 Nc5 2 0 . Bd5 ! Rab8 2 1 . h 4 b4 2 2 . h 5 ! Bc2 23.Qc2 be 24.Qc3 ++- Ne6 25. Rc4 Qd7 2 6 . h 6 ! B d 8 27 .g 6 ! , 1 - 0 ( notes from Informant 48/35 1 ) . IMPROVEMENT

B l ac k c a n d o b e tte r ; a ft e r a l l , improvements beget improvements. Here the second player should go 1 2 . . . Nd7! (instead of 12... b5), when the following game illustrates the possibilities: 1 3 .g4 Nc5 1 4.g5 f5! 1 5 .gf Bf6 1 6.e5 de 1 7 .Rc4 Nb3 1 8 .ab Qf7 1 9 . Bc5 b5 20 .Re4 Bb7 2 1 . Bf8 Rf8 22.fe Be5 23.Re5 Bh1 24.Re6 Qf4 25.Qd2 Od2 26. Kd2 Rf2 27. Re2 Rf6 28.Ne4 Be4 29 .R e4 , 1 /2- 1 /2. SOURCE

Wedbe rg-Mednis, Copenhagen 1 99 1 .

889 note 92 1 .e4 cs 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nt6 5.Nc3 e6 6. Bc4 Nc6 7.Be3 Be7 8.Qe2 0-0 9.0-0-0 a6 1 O.Bb3 Qc7 1 1 .f4 Nd4 1 2 .Rd4 b5

889 note 92a 1 .e4 c5 2 .Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5 . N c3 e6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.Be3 Be7 8.Qe2

VOLUME B

99

0-0 9.0-0-0 a6 1 0.Bb3 Qc7 1 1 .f4 Na5 1 2 .g4 b5 1 3.g5 Nb3 1 4.ab Nd7 1 5.f5oo ECO.

8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.f3 b5 1 O.a4 b4 1 1 .Nd5 Bd5 1 2.ed Nb6 1 3.Bb6 Qb6 1 4.a5 Qb7 1 5.Bc4 Be7 1 6.Ra4 Rb8 1 7 .Qd3 Qa7!? 1 8.Ba6 0-0, with com pensation -ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Wh ite does better to strike in the center with 8 .f4 , after wh ich there can follow 8 . . . Ng4 9 . Bd2 Qb6 (9. . . ef 1 0. Bf4 Nc6

1 1 .0d2 Be? 12.0-0-0 was Glek-Lutz, Germany 1 992, when Glek analyzes 12. . . 0-0 13.h3 Nge5 14.Kb 1 + =) 1 O.Qf3

ef 1 1 . Qf4 ! Nd7 1 2. Be2 Nge5 1 3. Be3, as in Lanka-Mojseev, Nettetal 1 992. Now L a n k a g iv e s 1 3 . . . Q c 7 1 4 . N d 4 N c4 (14 ... g6!?) 1 5 . Bc4 Qc4 1 6.0-0-0 Ne5 1 7.Nf5 Qc7 1 8. Nd5 Bd5 1 9. Rd5 + - . SOURCE BUST

Things are actually quite clear after the further moves 1 5 ... b4 1 6.Na4 Nc5 1 7.f6 Bd8 1 8.Rhg1 Bb7 1 9.Rg4 Rc8 20.Rh4 g6 2 1 .Qg2 h5 22.Kb1 e5 23.Nc5 de 24.Nf5 Ra8 25.Nd6 aS 26.Rh5 gh 27.g6 Bf6 28.gf Kh7 29.Rg1 Be4 30.Qe4 Kh8 31 .Qg6, 1 -0. 1 1 ... Na5 (?! ) has quietiy gone out of fashion.

Informant 54/241 -242.

890 note 20 1 .e4 c5 2 .Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 Ng4 7 .Bg5

SOURCE

Wedberg-Dolgister, New York 1 99 1 .

890 line 4 1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6

Nc6 8.Qd2 h6 9.Bh4 Nd4 1 O.Qd4 e5 1 1 .Qa4 Bd7 1 2 . Bd8 Ba4 1 3.Bb6 + = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Black does better with 7 . . . h6 8. Bh4 g5 9 . Bg3 Bg7. Now H e n nigan-Gallagher, Lo ndon 1 992 wen t 1 O . Be2 (not 1 O.f3

Ne3!, 0- 1 Wagman-Rashkovsky, Forli

1 00

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1992 -ed) h5 1 1 .h4 (1 1 .h3? h4) gh 1 2 . Bh4

Nc6 1 3.Nb3 Be6! 1 4 .Qd2 Qb6! 1 5.Nd5 (1 5. f3 Bh6!) B d 5 1 6 .ed N d 4 1 7 . Bg4

(1 7.Nd4 Bd4 1 8. 0-0 Ne3 1 9.Rfe 1 Nf5 -+)

hg 1 8 .0-0-0 Nf5 ! 1 9 . Bg5 Rh1 20 . R h 1 Qb5 ! . Now, i nstead of 21 .Rd1 ? , White should have tried 2 1 .Kb1 aS 22 .c3 = + . Co mme nts based on notes by Gallagher.

e mbarrassing for ECO, however, is that after their 1 O.Ne6 Black can simply play 1 o . . .fe ! 1 1 . Bb6 ed 1 2 .Bd8 RdB - + . SOURCE

Thanks to Senior Master John Hall fo r po i nting o ut 1 o . . . fe ! .

892 note 90

SOURCE

N I C 26 , p.20.

892 note 1 1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 b5 7.Bf3

Ra7 8.Be3 Rd7 9.Nd5 e5 1 O.Ne6 Qa5 1 1 .b4 Qa4 1 2.Nec7 +· ECO.

I wonder if this l in e was given j ust to show off the cute 1 O.Ne6. Wh ite may be able to eve ntually demonstrate so me kind of edge after 6 . . . b5, but it won't be in the sequ ence ECO gives: BUST

N M Selby Anderso n (Texas Knights, Vo l . 3 3 , N o . 1 [ S e p/Oct 1 9 9 1 ] , p . 2 2 ) observes that Black can conti nue from the diagram with 7 . . . e5, and if 8.Nf5 d5 ! . That means Wh ite must play 8.Nb3 or 8.Nde2 , and only then can he set about fi nding EGO's "clear advantage" . Eve n more

1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7 .Nb3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 Be6 1 O.Qd2 N bd7 1 1 .a4 ReB 1 2.a5 Q c7 1 3 .Rfc1 Oc6 1 4.Bf3 Bc4 1 5. Ra4 RfeB 1 6.Rb4 Qc7 1 7 .Nd5 Nd5 1 8.ed f5 ECO. ""

IMPROVEMENT

I n stead of 1 8 . . . f5 , Tirabassi cites Nunn's analysis of 1 8 . . . Nf6 as fol lows: 1 9 .Re1

(1 9. Bb6 Od7 20.Nc5 de 2 1 .Rc4 Od6 and 22. . . Nd7, or 1 9.Nc5 Oa5 20.Nb7 Oa2) e4 2 0 . Bb 6 Qd7 2 1 . Be4 Bf8 2 2 . Bf3 R e 1 23 .Qe1 BdS =+ . NOVELTY

W h ite c a n , h o we v e r, m ai n tain th e b a l a n ce w i t h 1 3 . Rfd 1 ! (ins tead o f 1 �. Rfc 1), when J ansa, Neto, and Zenica g1ve 1 3 . . . Qc6 1 4 . Bf3 Rfe8 1 5.Qe1 Ra8!? 1 6. Rd2 bS 1 7 .ab Nb6 1 8.Na5 Qc7 1 9.Na4 Na4 20 .Ra4 Bd7 2 1 . Ra2 (or 21.Ra 1 RabB 22.c4 d5! ) dS 22.ed e4 23. Be2 Bb4

VOLUME B

oo

oo.

1 01

SOURCE

M.Tirabassi, "Sicilian Defence Najdorf Variation ," CYB 2, p.1 79.

32.Qb4 + - ReB 33.Qe4 Rc2 34 . Rd8 Rc1 35. Kh2 Qg7 36.Qf4 Qc7 37.Qc7 Rc7 3 8 . Nf6, 1 -0 (notes based on ann notations

by Tseitlin).

SOURCE

893 l i ne 9

Informant 54/246.

1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 es 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.Bc4 Be7

897 note 78 1 .e4 cs 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 1 0.e5 de 1 1 .fe Nfd7 1 2 .Bc4 Qa5 1 3.0-0 Bc5

9.a4 0-0 1 O . Qe2 Qa5 1 1 . B d 2 ef 1 2 .Nd5 Qd8 1 3.Bf4 Nd5 1 4.Bd5 Bf6 1 5.Bd6 Bb2 1 6.Rb1 Bc3 1 7.Kf2 Re8 1 8 . B b7 B b7 1 9 . R b7 N f 6 , with compensation -ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Here is a model game i n wh ich White gets along just fine without the restrain i ng 9.a4. Tseitlin-Sere brjanik, Tel-Aviv 1 992 went 9.0-0 0-0 1 O . Kh 1 Qc7 1 1 .Qe2 b5 1 2 . B b3 B b 7 1 3 . N h 4 ! N c 5 (13... Ne4 14.Nd5!) 1 4.fe de 1 5 .Nf5 Nb3 (15... Nce4

16.Ne4 Be4 {16. . . Ne4 1 7.Bh6!!] 1 7.Ne7 Qe7 18.Bg5 Bg6 1 9.Rae1 Rfe8 20. 0f3

+=

) 1 6 .ab b4 1 7 . N d5 Nd5 1 8 . ed g6

(18... Bd5 19.Bh6! Bf6 20.Ne3, planning 21.Rf6) 1 9.Qc4! Bd6 20 .Qh4 ! f6 (Tseitlin analyzes 20...gf? and20... 0d8 as leading to won positions for White) 2 1 .Nh6 Kh8 22 .Rf6 Be? 23.Bg5 Bf6 24. Bf6 Rf6 25.Qf6 Qg7 26.Qg5 Bd5 27.Rd1 Rf8! 28.h3 Bg8 2 9 . Rd6 a5 3 0 . N g 4 e4 3 1 . Q a5 Q b 2

1 02

1 4 . Nd5 ! ? Bd4 1 5 .Qd4 Nc6 1 6 .Qf4 Nde5 1 7 .Rbe1 Qc5 1 8.Kh1 Qc4 1 9.Nc7 Kf8 20.Na8oo ECO. BUST

I n the diagrammed position White can play as i n M anduch- Mitov, corr. 1 988-90, which went 1 4 .Be6! fe (14 .. . 0-0 1 5.Rf7 Rfl 1 6. Bf7 Kf7 1 7.e6 + -) 1 5 . Kh 1 Bd4 (forced) 1 6 . Qd4 N e 5 (Polivalov gives

16... Nc6 1 7.Ne4! Nde5 1 8. 0d6! with a strong attack). Now the game co ncluded

abru ptly with 1 7 . R b7 ! , 1 -0 i n view of 1 7 . . . Bb7 1 8.Qd6 , 1 7 . . . N bc6 1 8.Qd6 Bd7 1 9 . Rd7, or 1 7 . . . Ng6 1 8.Qg7 Qg5 1 9 .Qf7 Kd8 20.Rd1 . Manduch, on whose notes these comments are based, also gives the

E.C.O. BUSTED!

alte rnative 1 7 .0d6 Ng6 1 8 .Rbe1 Qg5 1 9 .Nd5 Qd5 2 0 . Qd5 +-. Note : For your consideration, Manduch opines that in 897 line 1 2 (of which note 78 above is a branch) White has tangible co m p e n s ati o n fo r h is m ate r i a l afte r 1 3 . . . Ne5 (instead of 13. . Bc5) 1 4 .Rbe1 Nc4 1 5 . Qf4 Nd6. Now, rather than EGO's 1 6 . N e4 Q c7 1 7 .c4oo, M a n d u c h g i ves 1 6 . R e 3 ! h6 1 7 . B h4 N c6 1 8 . N c 6 be 1 9 . Rd3 .

897 note 1 02 1 .e4 cS 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 1 O.ts Nc6 1 1 .fe fe 1 2.Nc6 be 1 3.e5 Nd5 1 4.Nd5 cd 1 5.Be2 de 1 6.0-0 Ra7 1 7 .c4 Qc5 1 8.Kh1 d4 +- ECO.

.

SOURCE

GYB 2/1 8 1 .

897 note 80 1 .e4 cS 2.Nf3 d 6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 1 0.e5 de 1 1 .fe Nfd7 1 2.Bc4 QaS 1 3.0-0 Ne5 1 4.Rbe1 N bc6oo ECO ,

citing Boleslavsky.

Li n e 1 4 of E G O 's Poisoned Pawn coverage leads to a clear advantage for White. Great news ! We'll just see note 1 02 for the wrap-up. . .What? Here is 1 9.Qd3oo, and 1 9 .Qc2 Be7 20. Bd2 Rb7 21 .Bd3 g6oo, but where's our clear advantage? Aha! 1 9.Bh5!?, and then two inches of tiny type cram med with brackets and parentheses, each containing lethal missteps. But if we can just wend our way through these landmines, sure enough, there at the end is White's clear advantage. Let's follow along: 1 9 . Bh5!? g6 20.Bd1 Be7 2 1 . Ba4 Kd8 22.Be7!? Re7 23.Qg5 Kc7 24.Rfe1 +-

BUST

Kovacs also quotes this Boleslavsky analysis, but fol lows it a bit further : 1 5 . Nc6 Nc6 1 6.Qf4 Bc5 1 7. Kh 1 0-0 -+. SOURCE

Laszlo Kovacs , Sicilian: Poisoned Pawn Variation ( O xfo r d : P e rg a m o n P r e s s 1 986), p.4 1 .

VOLUME 8

103

BUST

B. Jansson continues from the diagram with 24 . . . R f 8 2 5 . R e 5 Q b 4 ! 2 6 . Rc5 (26.Ree 1 Rf5 -+) Kd8 27.Rd1 Qa4 28. Rd4 Bd7 -+. SOURCE

Laszlo Kovacs , Sicilian: Poisoned Pawn Variation ( O xfo rd : P e rg a m o n P re s s , 1 986) p.64 .

899 note 35 1 .e4 cs 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 s.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7 .f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 N bd7 1 0.Be2 h6 1 1 .Bh4 g5 1 2.fg Ne5 1 3.Qf2 hg 1 4.Bg5 Nfg4 1 5.Qf4 Nf2 1 6.Qf2 Bg5 1 7.Kb1 Bd7 1 8.h4 Be7

899 note 29 1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 s.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7 .f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 1 0.Be2 h6 1 1 .Bh4 Rb8 1 2.f5 e5 1 3.Nb3 b5 1 4 .Bf6 Nf6 1 5 .h4 Bb7 1 6.g4 b4 1 7.Nd5 Bd5 1 8.ed +- ECO.

1 9 .g4 Qc5 20.Qg3 b5oo ECO. IMPROVEMENT

1 9 . R h 3 ! prevents B lack from playing 1 9 . . . 0-0-0, since 20.Nd5 ! ed 2 1 . Rc3 Nc4 22 .Qf7! (not 22.b3 Nd2 23.Kb2 Oc3!!) h4 23 .Qd5 b5 24. Bc4 is too strong -G udjev. With Black's King trapped in the center White qu ickly built up a deadly attack in G udj ev-G u n sav, World Carr. C h . , 1 /2 F i n al 1 9 78-80 , wh ich conti n u ed after 1 9 . R h 3 ! with 1 9 . . . Qc5 2 0 . h 5 b5 (20. . . 0-0-0 21.Nd5!) 2 1 . Rf1 ReB 22 .h6! Rh7 23.Qg3 Kf8 24.Nb3 Qb4 (24... 0c7

�

BUST

Judged by the following game, Black appears to have ple nty of play left in th is position. If White has a clear advantage, where did he go wrong? Hauptman n ­ Effertz , carr. 1 990-91 continued 1 8 . . . Nd7 1 9 .Nd2 0 - 0 20 .f6 Rfc8 2 1 . Bd3 Bf6 22.Ne4 Nc5 ! 23 .Nf6 gf 24.g5 b3!! 25 .ab Rb3 26.Bh7 Kh7 27.Qf5 Kg8 28.cb Ne4 0- 1 . SOURCE

Fernschach International, Ju ly/August

25.Bh5! b4 26.Bf7 Nf7 27. Qg6, or 26... Rf7 27.0g7) 2 5 . B h 5 R c 3 2 6 . b c O a 3 (26. . . 0e4 27.Nd2 Od5 28.Bf7!, and now 28... Nf7 29. Qg6 Qd2 30. Qh7, or 28... Rf7 29. Qg7 Ke8 30. Rf7 Nf7 3 1 . 0gB BfB 32.Rf3 e5 33.Ne4 Oe6 34.h7 [34.Rf7 Of7 35.Nd6] both win tor White) 27.Bf7 ! ! 1 -0, because after 27 . . . Nf7 fo llows 28.Qg6, or if 27 . . . R f7 2 8 . Q g 7 Ke8 2 9 . R f7 N f7 (29... Nc4 30.Re7 leads to mate) 30 .0gB Bf8 3 1 .Rf3 ! -analysis by Gudjev.

1 992, p.4 1 2.

1 04

E.C.O. BUSTED!

SOURCE

SOURCE

" Portrait: M laden Gudjev, " Fernschach International, Jan u ary 1 992, pp.1 1 - 1 2 .

Vincent McCambridge, "National Open Las Vegas: The Lucky Seven ," Chess Life, September 1 990, p.39.

899 note 51

899 note 1 48

1 .e4 c5 2 .Nf3 d 6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7 .f4 Be7 B.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 1 0.Be2 b5 1 1 .Bf6 Nf6 1 2.e5 Bb7 1 3.ef Bf3 1 4.Bf3 Bf6 1 5.BaB d5

1 6.Bd5 Bd4 1 7 .Rd4 ed 1 B.Re1 KfB ECO.

1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7 .f4 Be7 B.Qf3 Qc7 9 .0-0-0 Nbd7 1 0.g4 b5 1 1 .Bf6 Nf6 1 2 .g5 Nd7 1 3.f5 Bg5 1 4.Kb1 Ne5 1 5.Qh5 QdB 1 6.Rg1

=

NOVELTY

The game Garcia- Browne, Las Vegas 1 990 contin u ed 1 6. Bc6 from the diagram , and B rowne responded with 1 6 . . . Ke7, as approved by N u n n 's Najdorf for the Tournament Player. But best, according to I M V i n c e M cC am b ridge , i s 1 6 . . . Kf8 1 7 .Nce2 !? Bd4 1 8 . Nd4 Qf4 1 9 . Kb 1 Ke?oo. Afte r t h e text m ove , G arc i a- B row n e concluded 1 7 . R he 1 ! Qf4 1 8 . Kb1 Kd6 1 9 . Bd5 ed 2 0 . N d5 ! Qg5 2 1 . N f6 Qf6 2 2 . N b 5 Kc5 2 3 . R d 6 Qf5 24 .g4 Qf4 25.Red1 Qe4 26.Nc3 Qf4 27 . R 1 d5 Kc4 28 .Rc6, 1 -0.

Bf6 1 7.fe 0-0 1 8.Bh3 g6 1 9.Nd5 KhB 20.Qe2 fe 21 .Be6 ReB 22.BcB ReB 23.h4 N c4 24.h5 Bd4 25.Rd4 +- ECO. BUST

F a r b e t t e r i s 1 6 . . . h 6 ! , as i n Wolff- Browne, Philadelphia 1 989, which went 1 7.fe (1 7.Ne6!? Be6 1 8.fe 0-():.o) g6 1 8 . ef Kf7 1 9 .Qe2 Kg? 20.Nd5 Rf8 21 .Qg2 Ra7! 22 .Qg3 Kh7 23.Bh3 Bh4 24 .Qc3 Bf2

(Black is also fine after 24... Raf7 25.Bc8 Oc8 26. 0c8 ReB 27.Rgf1 Rcf8 28.Rf7 Rf7, planning 29 . . . Rf2) 25. Rgf1 Bh3 2 6 . Q h 3 B d 4 2 7 . R f 8 (27. Rd4 ? Oh4 28.0g2 Oh2!) Qf8 28. Rd4 Qf2 , and the position favors Black (0- 1173). N o tes based on an notations by Walter Browne.

VOLUME B

1 05

SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vol.2, No.20 (October 9 , 1 989) , pp.27-28 .

1 06

E.C.O. BUSTED!

VOLU ME C

VOLUME C

1 07

1 08

E.C.O. BUSTED!

COO NOTE 3 1 .e4 e6 2.e5 c5 3.f4 d5 4.ed Bd6 5.g3 Bf4

CORRECTION

6.gf Qh4 7.Ke2 Qf4, with compensation

-EC O .

BUST

6. Bb5 ! Bd7 7. Bd7 Nd7 8.gf Qh4 9 . Kf1 Qf4 1 O . Qf3. Black can't afford to trade Queens, but if he goes for th e third pawn with 1 O . . . Qc4 1 1 .d3 Qc2 1 2 . Na3 Qa4, t h e n 1 3 . N c4 g i v e s W h i t e a l a r g e advantage (analysis by Minev).

It's not so clear where Black's "clear advantage" is after 8.Qc4 Be6 9.Qd3 (7. . . Be6 8. Qe4 Nf6 9. Qd3 transposes -ed) 0-0-0 1 O . Be3 , as analyzed by Minev. C ertain ly Wh ite can't be bowled over (10... Ne5? 1 1.de), and besides, why play 5.0f3 if not to steal a pawn? SOURCE

Ibid., p.20.

C02 NOTE 85

SOURCE

N icolay M in ev, French Defence: New a n d Forgo tte n Ide a s ( Davenport: Thinke r 's Press, 1 988), p.2. D r. M i nev seems to take a special delight in pointi ng out errors in ECO, and several of the entries found in this volume are th e di rect resu lt of his tireless research. Beyond that if the reade r can own only one book o n h e Fre nch defe n s e , it should be M inev's New and Forgotten Ideas. May it never go out of pri nt!

1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cd 7.cd Bd7 8.0-0 Nd4 9.Nd4 Qd4 1 O. Nc3 Ne7 1 1 .Nb5 Qe5 1 2.f4 Qb8 1 3.f5 a6 1 4.Qf3 +- ECO.

t

C01 NOTE 1 9 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.ed ed 5.Qf3 Qe7 6.Nge2 Nc6 7.Qd5? Nf6 -+ ECO.

VOLUME C

1 09

BUST

1 4 . . . Bb5 ! ? 1 5 .f6 N f5oo, o r 1 5 . f e f e (15.. .f6!?) 1 6.Qf7 Kd?oo -Minev. SOURCE

Ibid., p.41 . Note : if White is i n te n t o n playing this g am b it h e s h o u ld adjust h is move o rder with 8 . Nc3 ! , s i nc e a . . . N d4 9 . Nd4 Qd4 1 0 . 0-0 transpose s , but if 8 .0-0 (as given in all the boo ks) B lack c a n p l ay a . . . N b 4 ! ? a n d 9 . . . B b 5 . G ranted , Black doesn't land o n e asy street, but Wh ite gets th ro wn off h is game plan .

0-0 22.Nd4 f6! =+, according to Byrne and Mednis) 2 1 . . . b4 22.Nd5 ed 23.f6 Be6! 2 4 . f e Q e 7 25 . Rg 3 g 6 = + . N otes by Cordoba. SOURCE

Informant 54/252 .

C04 1 i ne 4 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nc6 4.Ngf3 Nf6 s.es Nd7 6.c3 f6 7 .Bd3 fe 8.Ne5 Nde5 9.de Ne5 1 O.Qh5 Nf7 1 1 .Bh7 Be7 1 2.Nf3 Bf6 1 3.g4 es 1 4.g5 BfS 1 5 .gf g6 1 6.Qh4 g5 -+ ECO.

C02 note 89 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 cs 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cd 7.cd Bd7 8.0-0 N d4 9.Nd4 Qd4 1 O. Nc3 a 6 1 1 .Qe2 Ne7 1 2 .Kh1 ! Nc6 1 3.f4 Nb4 1 4.Rd1 Nd3 1 5.Rd3 Qc4 1 6.b3 Qc7 1 7 .Bb2

BUST

I M Donaldson credits G M Ftacnik with finding 1 7.Qa4 Bd7 (1 7... b5 18.Qb5 Bdl 1 9. Qd5 Rh l 20. Ng5! + -) 1 8 . Qc2 e4 1 9 . Ng5 + - . ReS 1 8.f5 Qa5 1 9.Rad1 Ba3 20.Ba3 Qa3 21 .f6 +- ECO.

SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vo l.4, No.21 (Octobe r 2 1 ,

1 99 1 ) , pp.29-30.

BUST

Th e fo llowing game i n d icates that 1 7 . . . b5 ! e n s u r e s B l ack o f a s l ig h t advantage: Wallyn-Mednis, Cannes 1 992 continued with 1 8 . Rc1 (18. f5? b4 and

19 ... Bb5, or 1 8. Qf2 b4! 19.Ne2? Qc2!) Qb7 1 9.Qd2 (19. Qf2 ReB followed by 20... b4) Rc8 ! 20.Rd1 Be? 2 1 .f5!? (21 . Ne2

110

C04 note 22 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nc6 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nd7 6.c3 f6 7.ef Qf6 8.Bb5 Bd6 9.0-0 e5 ! ?

E.C.O. BUSTED!

After 1 5. Rg1

The move 9 . . . e 5 ! ? is given by ECO without comment or evaluation . BUST

Too fancy. Black should co ntin u e with 9 . . 0-0 etc., with a clear advantage. From the diagram, however, White plays 1 O .de Nce5 (1 O . . Be5 1 1 . Nb3!) 1 1 . Ne5 Be5 1 2 . B d 7 Bd7 1 3 . N f3 Bg4 (what else ? 13. . . 0-0-0 14.Bg5, or 1 3 . . 0-0 14.0d5 .

.

.

drops too much wood, and meanwhile 14.Re 1 is on -ed) 1 4 .Qa4 Bd7 1 5. Qb3 + - ,

Minev.

typical co nti n u ation i s 2 1 . Q e 2 N a3 2 2 . N a4 B a4 2 3 . R a3 N b S 2 4 . R a 1

(24. Ra4 Nc3; 24 . . . Nd4 25.Nd4 Oa4 26.Ne6!?) Nc3 25 .Bc3 Rc3 26.Rgg1 ?! (26. Rag 1) b 5 2 7 . f 5 ef 2 8 . e 6 B d 6

2 9 . N e5 Q e 6 3 0 . Rg2 Be5 3 1 .de R h3 3 2 . B b5 Rce3 3 3 . Qf1 Bb5 34 . Qb5 Qe5 , 0 - 1 . W h ite 's plan of Kh 1 , Rg1 , and g4 i s p layi n g i n to Black's h ands; a more dangero u s idea i s g3, h 3 , g4 etc. SOURCE

C .Jones-Pickard, m/2 Memphis 1 985.

SOURCE

C06 line 1

Minev, French Defense, p .55 .

1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cd 8.cd Nb6 9.0-0 Bd7 1 O.NfJ

COS l i ne 1 5 1 .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ndf3 cd S.cd h5 9.Bd3 N b6 1 O.Ne2 Bd7 1 1 .0-0 aS 1 2.a3 Be7 1 3.b3 g6 1 4. Kh1 Kf8 1 5 . Rg1 (diagram) Kg7 1 6.g4 += ECO. IMPROVEMENT

1 5 . . . Kg7(?) is leading with yo u r ch i n . I nstead, Black should g et on with h is Qu eenside play, e . g . 1 5 . . . a4 ! 1 6.b4 Na7 1 7. Nc3 Qe8 1 8 .g4 ( 1 8. Qe2 ReB 1 9.Bd2

Nc4, followed by 20. . . Na3 or 20. . . Nb5) h g 1 9 . Rg4 ReB 20. Bd2 Nc4 (20 ... Nb5!?),

a n d W h ite i s a l ready d i stracted s u ffic i e n tl y to balance t h e g a m e . A

VOLUME C

111

Be7 1 1 .Nf4 g6 1 2.Nh3 aS 1 3.Bh6 Nb4 1 4.Nfg5 += ECO. CORRECTION

This line is awful fe r Black, who is probably lost already. I n stead of the hasty 1 4 .Nfg5 White should go 1 4 .Bb1 ! (to "sac" it later), plan n ing 1 5 .Qf3. How can Black hold out much longer? IMPROVEMENT

..

With White's Knight on f3 there's no rush for . . . g6. Therefore 1 1 . . . h5! is best, with 1 2 . . . Kf8 , . . . QeB, and . . .as to follow, playing ... g6 only after White's f4. NOVELTY

The reason for the diagram, however, is to point out that Black can reach these Le ningrad French fo rm atio n s via th e Advance variation, a fact overlooked i n the literature. For eample, 1 .e4 e 6 2 .d4 d5 3.e5 cS 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bd7 (or 5... Nge 7) 6.Bd3 (6.a3 a5!) Nge7 7.0-0 cd B .cd NcB 9 . Nc3 Be? 1 O.a3 a5 1 1 . b3 N b6 etc . , holding back . . . h 5 u ntil White's Nf3 1eaves it's post. Us i ng this move order White can usually be "tricked" into placing h is pieces on less useful squares compared to the Tarrasch move o rder, e . g . he will normally play Be2 i nstead of Bd3, and after . . . Nge? a common idea for White is Na3-c2 . Many players who specialize in the Advance French can be caught out in this way.

... . .

.e.

� --�

£ �� � /// "' ......z

}.' .

:::: /

After 1 5.D-O

What e lse can Black do fro m the diagram, with 1 6 . Re 1 coming up? SOURCE

Ku ijf-AIIen, D ublin 1 977

C06 note 98 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 cs 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cd 8.cd Qb6 9.Nf3 f6 1 O.ef Nf6 1 1 .0-0 Bd6 1 2.Nc3 0-0 1 3.Be3 Bd7 1 4.a3 ! Be8

C06 note 52 1 .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3 . N d 2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7 .Ne2 Qb6 8 .Nf3 cd 9 . c d f6 1 O . N c3 fe 1 1 . d e N d e 5 1 2 .Ne5 Ne5 1 3 .Qh5 Nf7 1 4 .Bb5 Ke7 1 5 . 0 - 0 , with co m pe n s at i o n - E C 0

(diagram ) .

CORRECTION

Wh ite 's compensatio n i s very good indeed: the only game on record with this line went 1 5 . . .g6 1 6.Qh4 Kd6 1 7.Qf6, 1 -0 .

112

1 5 . Ne5 ? ! Be5 1 6.de Qb2 1 7.ef Qc3 1 8.fg Qg7 1 9.f4 ·+ ECO. CORRECTION

An evaluation typo: according to the source ECO cites ( Informant 3/205) , as well as common sense, the final position should be cons idered equal (but u nclear-Hall) .

E.C.O. BUSTED!

BUST

From th e diagram ECO offers 1 5 .Ng5 += as an alternative. Howeve r, Postal I M H .Tiemann calls 1 5 .Ng5? ! d ubious, citing the following evide nce: 1 5 . . . Ne7! 1 6 . h3 (1 6.g3!?) Bc7 1 7.Ne2 Bh5 1 8 .0c2 R ac8 ! , Kuzm in-Meister, Budapest 1 989. In ste ad of 1 7. Ne2 White tried 1 7. Rc1 in Ghinda­ Dim itrov, Stara Zagora 1 990, but Black was bette r after 1 7 . . . h 6 1 8 . Nf3 B h5 1 9 . Be2 Nf5. SOURCE

Fernschach International, J a n u a ry 1 992, p.26.

f5 32 .b4 g5 33.c3 f4 34.e4 de 35.Rb7 Re7 3 6 .Ne4 Ke6 3 7 . Ng5 Kf5 38. Re7 Ne7 39 .Ne4 Nd5 40.Nc5 Ne3 41 . Na6 Ng2 42.Nc5 f3 43 .a6 f2 44.Ne4 f1 =0 45.Ng3, 1 -0 . A positional masterpiece . SOURCE

Szabo-Barcza, Stockholm 1 952.

C1 0 note 22 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e5 Ne4 6.Bd3 Bb4 7.Bd2 Nd2 8.Qd2

COS note 24 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.ed ed 5.Bb5 Nc6 6.Qe2 Qe7 7.dc Qe2 8 . Ne2 B c5 9.Nb3 Bb6 1 O.a4 Nge7 1 1 .a5 Bc7 1 2.Bf4 += ECO.

f6! 9.ef Qf6 1 O.a3

oo

ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

CORRECTION

Wh ite's advantage is actually q uite large [+ -). Whe n is the last time you saw Black play 6 . . . 0e7? Observe the e ntire game from which EGO's l i ne was extracted : 1 2 . . . Bf4 1 3 .Nf4 a6 1 4 . Bc6 be 1 5 . Nc5 Kd8 1 6 . Kd2 Kc7 1 7. R he1 Kd6 1 8. Nfd3 Ra7 1 9 . R a3 Bf5 20 . R b3 Bd3 2 1 . Nb7 Kd7 22 . Kd3 Nc8 23 . Kd4 Kc7 24. Nc5 Rd8 25 . R f3 Kd6 2 6 . R ee3 Rf8 2 7 . Rb3 f6 28 .Rfe3 R e7 29. Rb8 Re3 30.fe Re8 31 .b3

With 8 . . . Nd4!! Black obtains two pawns for the piece, the Bishop pair, and a long-term initiative as the following beautifully played game demo nstrates: 9.Nd4 c5 1 O.Ndb5 0-0 ! 1 1 .a3 BaS 1 2 .b4 cb 1 3. Ne2 ba 1 4.c3 a6 1 5.Nbd4 (15.Nd6 f6) f6 1 6.ef Of6 1 7.0-0 e5 1 8. Nb3 Bb6 1 9.Ng3 Be6 20.Ra3 Rac8 2 1 .Nc1 Bc5 22.Rb3 b5 23.Rb2 Bb6 24.Na2 e4 25. Bb1 Oe5 26. Kh 1 h5 27.f4 0f6 28.Ne2 (28.Nh5 Qh4 29.Ng3 Rf6 and Rh6) h4 29.Nd4 Bd4 30.Qd4 Od4 31 .cd h3 32.Nc1 g5! 33.Nb3 Rc4 34.gh gf 35.Rg2 Kh8 3 6 . Rfg 1 Rc7 37. Rg6 Bh3 3 8 . Nc5 f3 39 . R6g3 Rh7 40 .Rh3 Rh3 41 .Nd7 Rf4 42.Rc1 f2 43.Kg2 f1 =0 44.Rf1 Rf1 45 .Kf1 Rh2 , 0-1 . Tarrasch-Aiapin, Cafe de Monaco 1 9 0 2 ( ! ) . N o t e s b as e d o n A l ap i n ' s annotations.

VOLUME C

113

SOURCE

Nikolay Mi nev, "A Look at Simon Alapi n ," Inside Chess, Vol.2, No . 1 3- 1 4 (July 1 7, 1 989) , p.29 .

C1 0 note 1 08 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de 4 .Ne4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nf6 Nf6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9. Ne5 c5 1 O.dc Bc5 1 1 .Bg5 h6 1 2 . B h 4 Qd4 1 3 . B f6 g f 1 4 . N f3 Qb2 1 5 .Qd2 +- ECO. Aher S. .fe .

with 9 . . . Ne5 1 O .Qh5 Nf7 (1 0 ... Ng6 1 1.Ng5 Qf6 12.Bb5 +-) 1 1 .Ng5 g 6 1 2.Qg4 Bg7

( 1 2 . . . Ne 5 1 3. Bb5 Bd7 1 4 . Q e 6, o r 12... Ng5 1 3. Bg5 0d4 14.Rd1 ++-) 1 3 . Be6 Ne5 (13. . 0-0 14.0h3! -Kveinys) 1 4 .Qe4 Qe7 1 5 . Bc8 ReS 1 6.0-0 0-0 1 7. Bf4 + - . Notes based on annotations by Timman. .

SOURCE

Informant 54/262. BUST

Not so fast. Black can now play 1 5 . . . f5! 1 6 .Qh6 Qg7 1 7 .Qh5 b6 when, according to M inev, it is Black who stands better. SOURCE

C11 note 51 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 Qb6 8.Na4 Qa5 9.c3 cd 1 0.b4 Nb4 1 1 .cb B b4 1 2.Bd2 Bd2 1 3.Nd2 b6 1 4.Kf2 ? ! Ba6

Minev, French Defence, p . 1 1 1 .

C11 note 8 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Ne4 5.Ne4 de 6.Bc4 c5 7 .d5 Nd7 B .de fe (diagram) 9.f4 ef 1 0.Nf3 += ECO . IMPROVEMENT

White's advantage increases markedly after 9 . N h 3 ! , as i n Kve i n ys - C ro u c h , Katowice 1 992 . T h at g a m e proc e e d ed

114

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1 5 .Ba6 Qa6 1 6.Rc1 0-0 1 7.Nf3 Raca 1 8.Qd4 b5 1 9 . N c5 N c5 20.Rc5 ReS 21 .Qc5 Rca 22.Qe7 Qa2 23.Kg3 h6 -+ ECO. BUST

The first player n eeds to treat Black's gambit with a little respect, e .g . 1 5 .Nf3! Rc8 1 6. Nd4 0-0 1 7. Ba6 Qa6 1 8. R e 1 Rc4 1 9 .Nb2 Rb4 20 .Qd2 Qa3 2 1 .Nd1 Qa4 2 2 . N e 2 N c 5 2 3 . Kg 1 w a s Ti m m a n ­ Don aldson , Lugano 1 983 , whe n White can conso lidate h is material advantage . SOURCE

M i n e v , Fre nch D e fence, p . 1 2 4 . Incidentally, Minev also points out that i n E G O 's m a i n l i n e , 1 4 . R b 1 (instead of 14.Kf2) Ba6 1 5 .Qb3 Rca 1 6 . Ba6 Oa6 1 7 . O b4 N c5 e tc . + - , Z l o t n i k g i v e s 1 7 . . . Rc2 !oo. There's simply not room here to give all the corrections to faulty EGO lines that M in ev cites. As I said before, if you l ike the French get his book.

BUST

1 2 . Kd2 gf 1 3 . Rab1 + = . Wh ite gets h is pawn back and is better mobilized for the com i ng endgam e . By the way, it is a good exercise to solve the position arising if Black we re to take both Rooks with 1 1 . . .0a1 1 2 . Ke2 0h1 . SOURCE

Ibid., p . 1 71 .

C1 2 note 92 1 .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 s.es h6 6.Bd 2 Bc3 7.bc Ne4 8.Qg4 Kf8 9.h4 c5 1 0.Rh3 N c6 1 1 .Bd3 Nd2 1 2.Kd2 c4 1 3.Be2

C1 2 note 1 5 1 .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.Bd3 de 6.Be4 cs 7.Nge2 cd 8.Nd4? Bc3 9.bc Qas 1 0.Bf6 Qc3 1 1 .Qd2 Qd2 ! -+ ECO. Ne7 1 4.Qf4! Bd7 1 5 .Bh5

+-

ECO.

BUST

EGO's 1 3 . .. Ne7 is a lemon since an eventual . . . Nf5 is met by g4 , followed by death on f7. M uch more to the point is 1 3 . . . b5 !, preparing counterplay and not self-blocking the defence of f?. One recent game co ntin ued 1 4 . Rg3 Rg8 1 5.0f4 Bd7 1 6 . B h 5 B e 8 1 7 . R f 3 Q e 7 (note the

difference: Black seems secure on the Kingside and now begins operations on the other flank -ed) 1 8.Ne2 aS 1 9 .g4 Rh8 20 . R h 1 b4 2 1 .g5 be 22.Rc3 Rb8 23. Rg3 hg 24.hg g6 25.Bf3 R h 1 26.Bh1 Rb1 27 . R h3 Q b4 28 .Nc3 Ke7 29 .a3 Qb2 3 0 . N b 1 Q b 1 3 1 . Bd5 ed 32.0f6 Kd7

VOLUME C

115

33 . Qd6 Kc8 34 . R h 8 c3 3 5 . Kc3 Qa1 36. Kd2 Qd4 37. Ke 1 Qa1 38 . Kd2 Qd4 39 . Ke2 Qe4 40 . Kf1 Qc4 , 1 -2/1 -2. A n exciting game. SOURCE

Joh n Donaldson , "Reggio Emilia", Inside Chess, Vol.3, No .4 ( M arch 5, 1 990), p.1 6.

C1 3 note 68 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 s.es Nfd7 6.h4 cs 7.Be7 Ke7 8.f4 Qb6 9.Nf3 Qb2 1 0.Nb5 a6 1 1 .Nc7

Ott- Mon in, Kecskemet 1 990.

C1 2 note 1 1 9 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 s.es h6 6.Bd2 Bc3 7.bc Ne4 8.Qg4 g6 9 . B d3 N d 2 1 O . K d 2 cS 1 1 . N f3 Q c 7 1 2.Qh4!?

Q b4 1 2.Kf2 Ra7 1 3.c4

+-

ECO.

BUST

Qe7 1 3.Qf4 Bd7 1 4.dc Qcs 1 5.Nd4 a6 1 6.Rab1 +- ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Schwartz-Ju nge, corr. 1 983 continued from the d i ag ram w ith 1 1 . . . Qc3 ! 0 - 1 . M i nev notes that afte r 1 2 . Kf2 Ra? Wh ite's Knight is trapped and c4 is not possibl e . A vivid re minder to take "theory" with a g rain of salt. IMPROVEMENT

1 1 . . . Qc7 is designed to m eet 1 2 .Qf4 with 1 2 . . . f 5 , b u t B l ac k n e ed n ' t b e to o concerned abo u t t h e Wh ite Q u e e n 's arrival at f6. From the diagram lvanch uk­ Gurevich , Reggio Emilia 1 990 saw 1 2 . . .cd 1 3 .cd Bd7 1 4.Qf6 Rg8 1 5.h4 Nc6 1 6. Rhc1

(1 6.h5 g5 1 7. Qh6 g4 and 1 8 . . . Nd4 -Donaldson) Qa5 1 7.c3 (1 7.Ke2/e3 -ed) Qa3 1 8. h5 gh 1 9 .g3 Na5 20.Qh6 1 /2- 1 12. A premature d raw, but Don aldso n gives 20 . . . Nc4 21 .Ke1 0-0-0oo.

Instead of 1 1 . Nc7 White can take a draw with 1 1 . R b 1 Qa2 1 2 . Ra1 etc . , or try 1 2 . N d 6 Q a5 1 3 . Kf2 N c 6 1 4 . R h 3 cd 1 5 . B d 3 (Matulo vic-Zaradic, Zagreb 1 955). Better still would be to replace 9. Nf3 with 9.Na4 Qa5 1 O .c3 Nc6 1 1 .Nf3 cd 1 2 .b4 Qc? 1 3 .Nd4 a6 1 4 .Rh3 +=, as i n Gligo rich- Yanofski , Stockholm 1 948. SOURCE

Minev, French Defence, p.233.

SOURCE

116

C1 4 note 67

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 s.es Nfd7 6.Be7 Qe7 7.f4 0-0 8.Nf3 es 9.Bd3 ed 1 O.Bh7 Kh7 1 1 .Ng5 Qg5 1 2.fg ECO. de oo

Nc5 1 5.Be3 Na4 1 6.Ne4 f5 1 7.Nc5 Nc5 1 8.Bc5 b6 1 9. Be3 f4 20.Bc1 Bf5 21 .Rb2 Rd8 22.Be2 Bg4 23.Bg4 Rg4 24.g3 f3 25.0-0 Rc4 26.Rb3 Rd5 ! -+ (planning

27...Na5 -ed).

BUST

Wh ite wi ns after the further 1 3 .Qh5 Kg8 1 4 .0-0 Ne5 1 5 . Rae 1 Ng6 1 6 . Re3 e5 1 7 .g4 Rd8 (1 7... Re8 1 8.Rh3 Re6 19. R3f3

or 1 7. . . Nf4 1 8.Rf4 ef 1 9.Rh3 f6 20.g6+-) 1 8 . R h 3 Rd6 1 9 .Q h 7 Kf8 20 . R h 6 Rf6 2 1 . Rf6, 1 - 0 i n Szi lagy i - H ardi n g , co rr. 1 987. SOURCE

SOURCE

M . Chess I BM-Nesis, Oviedo 1 991 .

C1 5 note 3 1 .e 4 e6 2 .d 4 d5 3. Ne3 B b4 4 . Qg4 Nf6 5 .Qg7 Rg8 6.Qh6 es 7.e5 ed 8.a3 d e 9 . a b eb 1 O . B b 2 Qb6 1 1 .0-0-0 ECO. oo

Ti m H arding, The Classical French (New York: Macmi llan P ublishing Co., 1 99 1 ), pp . 1 20- 1 22 .

C1 5 line 1 6 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 . N e3 B b4 4.a3 B e3 S .be de 6.Qg4 N f6 7 .Qg7 Rg8 8.Qh6 e s 9 . N e2 N e 6 1 0 . d e ! Rg6 1 1 . Qd2 ( diagram) Bd7 1 2 . R b1 Qe7 1 3. Q d 6 ! 0-0-0 1 4.Qe7 Ke7 1 5. Ng3 h 5 1 6.h4 +­ ECO. BUST

A computer reached the diagrammed position , evidently heading for EGO's "clear advantag e " , w h e n its carbo n - based opponent surprisingly tu rned the tables : 1 1 ...Qd2 ! 1 2. Bd2 e5! 1 3.Rb1 Nd? 1 4.Ng3

BUST

Now 1 1 ... Rg6! 1 2.Qf4 (12.Qh4 Ne4 13.Nh3 Nc6! 14.b5 Nb4!) Ne4 1 3.Nh3 Nc6 1 4.c3

VOLUME C

117

( 1 4 . f3 Nb4! 1 5. fe Na2) B d 7 1 5 .f3 N b4 - + + .

C1 8 note 66 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5 .a3 Bc3 6.bc Ne7 7 .Qg4 0-0 8.Bd3 c4 9.Bh6 Ng6 1 O.Bg6 fg 1 1 .Be3

SOURCE Minev, French Defence, p.1 65.

C1 6 note 96 1 .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3 . N c3 B b4 4 . e5 b6 s.a3 Bc3 6.bc Qd7 7 .Qg4 f5 8 .Qg3 Ba6 9. Ba6 Na6 1 O.Ne2 N b S ? ! 1 1 . N f4 Nc6 ! ?

Qe7 1 2.h4 Qf7 1 3.h5 Qf5 1 4.Qe2 gh 1 5 .Rh5 Qg6 1 6.g4 ECO. oo

BUST

The move 1 1 . . . Nc6!? is offered by ECO, but without com me nt or evaluation. CORRECTION

1 o . . . N b8 ! and 1 1 . . . Nc6! are actually qu ite good, allowing Black to hold the balance . 1 2 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 1 3 . a4 N a5 1 4 . Ba3 Nc4 1 5.Bb4 aS is fine for Black (Moles and Wicker), wh ile 1 2 .Ne6 Oe6 1 3 .Qg7 Qg6 1 4 .Qh8 p roves to be a misguided adventure after 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 ! , and Wh ite's Queen won't get out cheaply. SOURCE

John Watson , Play the French (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1 984) , p.1 90.

118

Closing the center with 8 . . . c4? ! g ives Wh ite a free hand to organize his kingside assault, granting him a cle �r advantage. 1 n s t e ad of 1 6 . g 4 S z n a p 1 k a n a l y z e s 1 6. Kd2 ! Rf5 1 7. Rh4 Bd7 1 8 .Nh3 Ba4 1 9 . Rc 1 N d 7 2 0 . g 4 ! R ff8 2 1 . N f4 + ­ ( Informant 45/332). Anothe r example is van der Wiei-Hubner, Wijk aan Zee 1 988, in which Black we nt 1 1 . . . Qe8 from the diag ram. Play continued with 1 2 .h4 Nc6 1 3 .h5 gh 1 4 . R h5 Ne7 1 5.Nf3 Rf5 1 6. Bg5 Ng6 1 7 .0-0-0 h 6 1 8 . Rd h 1 hg 1 9 . Ng5 Rf2 20 .Qh3 Kf8 2 1 .Qe3 Rf7 22.Nf7 Kf7 23. Rf1 Kg8 24 . R h h 1 Ne7 25.Qh3 Nf5 26.g4, 1 -0 . 1 haven 't been able to find a n example of 8 . . . c4( ? !) since that convincing game was played. SOURCE

Neil McDo nald, Trends in the French Winawer ( Lo ndon : Trends Publ ications, 1 990) ' p.5.

E.C.O. BUSTED!

C1 8 note 76 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 B b4 4.e5 cs 5 .a3 Bc3 6 .bc N e7 7 .Qg4 cd 8.Bd3 Q a5 9.Ne2

Ng6 1 0.0-0 de 1 1 .h4 Nc6 1 2.f4 h5 1 3.Qg3 Nce7 1 4.Nd4, with compensation

- ECO.

R e y kj av i k 1 9 9 2 co n ti n u ed fro m the diagram with 1 O .ef (1 O.c4 Qa4 1 1 .cd ed 12. ef gf = +) gf 1 1 . N h 2 ! Qa4 ! 1 2 . Rb1 (12. Bd3 Bd7! 13. Qh5 KdB -+) c4! 1 3 .Qh5 Kd8 1 4 .Ng4 . Now best was 1 4 . . . Qc2! 1 5 . R c 1 Qe4 1 6 .Be3 Qf5 ! 1 7.Qf5 Nf5 1 8 . Nf6 N e3 1 9 .fe Ke? 20.Ng4 h5 (or 20 ...b5 = +) 2 1 .Nh2 e5 =+. Notes based on annotations by Shirov. SOURCE

BUST

Although the evidence of one game may be inconclusive , it's hard to see where White can improve after 9 . . . 0-0 1 O . Bg5 Nbc6 1 1 .f4 de 1 2.N g3 Ng6 1 3. N h 5 Qc5 1 4 .h4 Qd4 1 5 .Qg3 Nce5 1 6 .fe Qe5 1 7. Kf2 f6 1 8 .Qe5 N e5 1 9 .Be3 Ng4 -+.

Informant 54/277.

C22 1ine 3 1 .e4 e5 2 .d4 ed 3.Qd4 Nc6 4.Qe3 Nf6 s.es Ng4 6.Qe4

SOURCE

Johnsen-Osten stad, Gausdal 1 991 .

C1 9 note 7 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 B b4 4.e5 cs 5 .a3 Bc3 6.bc Ne7 7 .Nf3 Qa5 8.Bd2 Nbc6 9.h4 f6!? (d iagram)

9 . . .f6!? is given without com m ent or evaluation in ECO. CORRECTION

There is now evidence to suppo rt the claim of at least a slight advantage for B l ac k i n t h i s l i n e . S h i r o v - P i as k e tt ,

d5 7.ed Be6 8.Ba6 Qd6 9.Bb7 Qb4 1 O.Qb4 N b4 1 1 .Na3 Rb8 1 2.Bf3 Ne5, with com pensation - ECO.

VOLUME C

119

NOVELTY

"And now fo r som eth i ng compl ete ly d i ffe re n t " , g o e s M o n t y P y t h o n ' s i ntroductio n . We l l , postal m aste r Ray Gatte n must have been in a strange mood when he essayed 6 . . . Nge5 !? in a recent game (I don 't think anyone has analyzed this move since Salvioli, cr. 1 604!), but the result is complex, fighting chess, well worth further exploration . After 6 . . . Nge5 the game conti nued 7.f4 d5 8 .Qe2 (8.Qe3

d4 9. Qe4 Qh4 1 0.g3 [1 0.Kd1 Bell] Qg4!, and now 1 1. Be2 Qg6, 1 1 . Bb5 KdB!, and 1 1 .Bh3 Qg6 12. Qe2 Bh3 13.Nh3 Qg4 are - +) Qh4 ! 9.Kd 1 (9.g3 Qh6! 1 0.Nc3 Bg4 1 1 . Qe3 d4) Bg4 1 0 .Nf3 Qf6 (1 0... Qh5!? 1 1 . fe 0-0-01 12.c3 Ne5 1 3. 0f2 Nf3 1 4.gf Bf3 15.Be2 Be2 1 6. Qe2 Qe2 1 7.Ke2 Bd6 =+) 1 1 .fe Ne5 1 2 .h3 (12. 0b5 c6 13. Qb 7 Bf3 14.gf Qf3 15. Ke 1 Qe4 16.Kd1 Rd8 -+) Bf3 1 3 .gf 0-0-0 1 4 .f4 Nc4 1 5 .c3 Bc5 1 6 . Qg4 Kb8 1 7 . Kc2 h5 1 8 .Qg5 Qc6 1 9 .Qg2 Qf6 20.Bd3 Rhea 2 1 .Qg5 Qc6 22 . Rd1 Ne3 23 . Be3 Be3 24.b3 g6 25 . Kb2 Qd6 26.Rf1 d4 27.c4 f5 28 .a3 c5 29.a4 Qb6 30.a5 Od6 3 1 .Na3 Re6 32. Kc2 Qc7 33. Nb5 Qd7 34 .Qg3 a6 35 . N a3 Qc7 36.Nb1 Rg8 37.h4 Rge8 38 .Nd2 Ka7 39. Rf3 b6 40.Nf1 ba 41 .Ra2 Qb7 42.Ra4 Rb8 43.b4 ab 44 .Ne3 b3 45. Kb2 Qd7 46. Ka3 de 4 7 . Re3 Qd4 48 . R e 1 Qc3 49.Qf2 b2 50. Ka2 Qb3 , 0- 1 . Notes by Gatte n. SOURCE

John Dowli ng- Ray Gatte n , carr. 1 99 1 .

After 1 1 .ab

Bc5 1 6 . Be3 (1 6. Qh4 Bc6 1 7. Bg5 h6 18.Bf6 Be3) b6 1 7 . Bd4 Bd7 1 8 .g4 Ra5 1 9 . Nf4 Bc6 20. Rhg1 Nd7 2 1 .Nh5 g6 - + , 0- 1 /34 (n o te s bas e d on Karp o v 's annotations). It's i nteresting to recall that K a r p o v faced t h e C e n t e r G a m e i n H ase- Karpov, Skopje 1 9 72 , b ut went wrong o n move fo u r and was lucky to get o u t a l i v e . H e o b v i o u s l y d i d so m e homework after that encou nter! SOURCE

Informant 54/278 .

C24 1ine 9 1 .e4 es 2 .Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ed 4.Nf3 Ne4 5.Qd4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nc3 c6 a.0-0-0 d5 9.Rhe1 0-0 1 0.Qh4 Nbd7 1 1 .Bd3 g6 1 2 .Re2 Rea 1 3.Rde1 Ne4

C22 note 44 1 .e4 es 2.d4 ed 3.Qd4 Nc6 4.Qe3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 0-0 7.0-0-0 Rea a.Bc4 d6 9.f3 Na5 1 O .Bb3 Nb3 1 1 .ab (diagram) d5 1 2 .Nd5 Nd5 1 3.Qd4 +· ECO. BUST

I n Holmes- Karpov, Madrid 1 992 Black played 1 1 . . . a5 ! - + 1 2 .Qf2 (12.Nge2 d5 -now it works) Bd7 ! 1 3. Nge2 (13.Bg5? Bc3 14.bc Ne4) a4 1 4 .ba Ba4 1 5 .Nb1 ! ?

1 20

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1 4.Be7 Qe7 1 5 .Qe7 Re7

=

ECO.

BUST

Tony Bronzin observes that 1 4 . N e4! wins, e . g . 1 4 . . . de 1 5 . Re4 f6 (15 ... Bg5 16.Ng5) 1 6. Bc4 Kg7 (16... Kh8 1 7. Re7). Now G randm aster Evans analyzes the p retty finish 1 7.Qh7! Kh? 1 8. R h4 Kg? 1 9 . Bh6 Kh? 20. Bf8#. IMPROVEMENT

Natu rally Black doesn't h ave to play 9 . . . 0-0, and i n fact EG O's line 8 gives 9 . . . Be6 etc. , leading to a sharp struggle. Therefore White m ay do we ll to i m itate Krei man-Shirazi , M an hattan 1 992 with 9 . Q h 4 ! (in s te a d o f 9 . Rh e 1 ) . G M S h a m k o v i c h o b s e r v e s t h at 9 . . . B e 6 1 0 . Nd4 N bd? 1 1 . Bd3 !, plan ning Bf5 and Rhe1 is qu ite strong. Also , 9 . 0-0 1 O . Bd3 g6 (best) 1 1 . R h e 1 Be6 1 2 . Nd4 N bd? 1 3 . Re6 fe 1 4 . N e6 Qe8 1 5 . Nf8 Of8 1 6.Re1 R e B 1 7 . f4 i s good fo r W h i t e . Aft e r Kreiman's 9 .Qh4 ! th e game we nt 9 . . . Nbd7 1 0 . Rhe1 !? Kf8 ? ( 1 0... dc is too risky, but 1 O. . Nb6! is ". . . Black's best chance for survival. " -Shamko vich) 1 1 . B d 5 ! ! cd 1 2 . Re7 ! ! Qe? 1 3 .Nd5 Qe4! 1 4 . Bf4 ! . Now Shamkovich gives 1 4 . . . Qe6! 1 5 . Kb1 ! Qc6 1 6 . Be5! a5 (1 6... Ne5 1 7. Qb4 ++-) 1 7. Bf6 Nf6 1 8 . Nf6 + - . B l ack actu ally played 1 4 . . . h 6 ? , a n d 1 - 0/ 6 0 aft e r fu r t h e r inaccu racies. .

.

.

(at least!): 1 1 .N e4 ! Bg7 1 2.Nf6 Kf8 1 3.Ng4 Ng6 1 4 .Qf3 Nh4 1 5 .Qa3, 1 -0. SOURCE

Hector-Garcia, Spain 1 988.

C25 l i ne 6 1 .e4 es 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 ef 4.d4 Oh4 5.Ke2 d6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.8f4 0-0-0

SOURCE

1 ) Larry Evans, " Evans o n C hess , " Chess Life, March 1 990, p.42. 2 ) Inside Chess, Vo1.5, N o . 1 3 (July 6, 1 992) , p.?.

C25 l i ne 4 1 .e4 es 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 ef 4.Nf3 gs 5.d4 g4 6.Bc4 gf 7.0-0 dS 8 .ed Bg4 9.Qd2 Nce7 1 O.Qf4 Nh6! -+ ECO. BUST

8.Ke3 Qh5 9.8e2 gS 1 O.NgS Nf6 1 1 .h3 Be2 1 2 .Qe2 Qg6 -+ ECO. BUST

Judged by the fo llowing min iature , this evaluation will have to be reversed to "+-"

Wh ite can play 8 . 0d2 ! , threate n ing 9 . Bg 5 , after which there may fol low 8 . . . R e8 9.Re1 Nf6 1 O . Kd 1 Qh5 1 1 . Kc1 Bf3

VOLUME C

1 21

1 2 .gf Qf3 1 3. Be2 Qh3 1 4 . Rhg1 , and White has excellent compensation for h is pawn .

1 .e4 es 2 .Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 ef 4.Nf3 gs 5.d4 g4 6.Bc4 gf 7.0-0 Nd4 8.Bf4 !

SOURCE

Santas i e re and S m ith , The Vienna Game and Gambit, 2 n d e d . ( D al las : Chess Digest, 1 992) , p .42 .

C25 note 22 1 .e4 es 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 ef 4.Nf3 gs 5.d4 Bg7 6.d5 NeS 7.d6!

Qf6 9.Nd5 Qg7 1 O.Nc7 Kd8 1 1 .g3oo ECO. BUST

B lack comes out o n top after 8 . . . Bc5 ! 9. Bf7 Kf7 1 O . Be3 Ke8 1 1 . Bd4 Bd4 1 2 .Qd4 Qf6 1 3 .Qd3 Ne7 1 4 .Rf3 Qe5 - + . There even seems to be an altern ative : Russian Chess Re vie w reco m m e nds 8 . . . Bg7 ! 9. Bf7 (9.e5 d5!; 9.Be3 c5 1 0.Nb5 d5!) Kf7 1 0 .e5 d5 -+ ( R C R 1 /2 1 4 ) . Nf3 8.Qf3 cd 9.h4 h6 1 O.Bc4

+-

ECO.

Polasek-Karolyi, Prague 1 988.

IMPROVEMENT

Les Blackstock cites u ntested analysis by GM Agdeste in which goes 7 . . .c6 !? 8 . h4 h6 9. Nd4 Ng6 1 O. Nf5 Be5oo. If anyone wou ld care to take up th e Black side perhaps we can reclassify Agdestein's line from "improvement" to "bust" (or drop it altogether, as the case m ay be ! ) . SOURCE

Les Blackstock, TN Pocketbook 1 . e4 Vo/. 1 ( Lo n do n : Tre n d s P u b l icati o n s , 1 993) ' p.28 .

C25 note 25

1 22

SOURCE

C26 note 28 1 .e4 eS 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 BcS 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.Nge2 d6 6.0-0 hS 7.d3 h4 8.Bg5 hg 9.Ng3 Nd4 1 0.Nh5 Ne6 1 1 .Ng7 ? ! Ng7 1 2 .Nd5 NdS ! 1 3.Bd8 Nf4 (diagram) with co m p e n satio n -ECO, c iting A u gustin­

N u n n , Moscow 1 977. CORRECTION

After the fu rther moves 1 4 . Bg5 Nge6 1 5. Bf4 Nf4 1 6. Kh 1 Be6, M inev quotes N u n n 's analysis as fol lows : 1 7.Qf3 Ke7 1 8 . Rg1 Rh6 1 9 .Bf1 Rah8 20 .Qg3 Bg4 2 1 . Rg2 Ng2 22 . Bg2 Rg6 -+ . I n the actual

E.C.O. BUSTED!

B lack appe ars to h ave m o re than "compensation", since EGO's stem game continued 1 7.d3 Bg4 1 8.f3 Qg3 1 9 .Qg4 Qf2 20 .fe Oc2 - + + . IMPROVEMENT

Instead of 9 .Nce4 ("?" -Shamkovich), White can try 9.Nd5!?. Sh amkovich gives two possibilities: 9 . . . Bg5 (9. . Nd4 1 0.Ne7 Qe7 1 1 . Qg6) 1 0 .hg Qg5 1 1 .Qg5 hg 1 2 .d3 gives White an extra te mpo over EGO's l ine 7; and 9 . . . b6 1 O.d3 Bb7 1 1 .Ne7 Qe7 1 2 . R h 3 ! . T h e co n c l u s i o n ? Q u o t i n g Shamkovich , " I be lieve analyzing this new line will give readers great pleasure ." .

Aher 1 3 ... Nf4

g a m e W h i te p l ay e d 1 7 . Bf3 ? , l o s i n g quickly. SOURCE

N ikolay M i n e v, " M i n e v o n Tactics , " Inside Chess, Vol .3 , No .25-26 ( D ecember 24, 1 990), p.39.

SOURCE

Leon id Sh amkovich , " I nside Track," Inside Chess, Vol.2, No. 1 (Jan uary 23, 1 989) ' pp.28-29 .

C30 note 64 C27 note 42 1 .e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Ne4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.h4 Nc6 8.Ng5 h6 9.Nce4 Ne4 1 O.Bf7 Rf7 1 1 .Qf7 Kh8 1 2.Ne4 d5 1 3.Ng3 Nd4 1 4.Qg6 e4 1 5 . Kd 1 Qd6 1 6 . Q h5 Q f4 with compensation - E C O , c i t i n g K l a m a n ­

1 .e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.c3 f5 5.fe de 6.d4 ed 7.Bc4 fe 8.Ng5

Nezmetdinov, USSR 1 95 1 .

e3 9.Bf7 Kf8 1 O.Bg8 Qg5 11 .0-0 Bf5 1 2.cd ++- ECO. BUST

CORRECTION

8.Ng5 see ms to be an error, which was duely punished in Gallagher-Costa, Biel 1 990. I n that game Black continued from t h e d iag ram w ith 8 . . . Nf6 9 . Nf7 Qe7 1 0 . N h 8 ( 1 0 cd Bb4 1 1 .Nc3 RfB 12.Ne5 .

VOLUME C

1 23

Ng4!) Nc6 1 1 . Bg5 ( 1 1 .Nf7 is the complex alternative. An outline of Gallagher 's analysis runs 1 1 . . . Bg4 ! 1 2. 0b3 Bb6 13. Qa3! Bc5 14. Qb3 [14 . . . 0d7!?], trying to draw by repetition) Ne5 1 2 .cd Bg4 1 3 .Qa4 Bd7 1 4.Qb3 Bd4 1 5 . Nc3 (15. 0b7 Bc6 16.Bb5 Ob4) Nd3 1 6. Bd3 (better was 16.Kd2 Nc5 1 7. Qd1 0-0-0 - +) ed 1 7 . Kf1 0-0-0 1 8.Nf7 Rf8 1 9 .Qc4 Bb6 20.Ne4 Rf? 21 .Nd6 Qd6 22.Qf7 Qc5 23 . Bh4 Qf5 2 4 . Ke 1 Qe4 25 . Kd2 Ba5 , 0 - 1 ( n otes based on an notations by G M Gallagh er) . SOURCE

Joe Gallagher, "Winning with the King 's Gambit" ( Lo n d o n : B at s f o rd , 1 9 9 2 ) , pp . 1 69- 1 75 .

6 . Bc4 N b 6 7 . Bb3 Q h 4 8 .g3 Q h 3 (= + Ivano vic) 9 .Qe2 f6 1 O.Nc4 (1 O.Nd3? Bg4 1 1 .Nf2 Qg2 1 2. Qe4 Oe4 13.Ne4 Bf3) Bg4 ! 1 1 . Qe4 Kd? 1 2 .Nb6 ab 1 3 .Qb7 (13.Kf2

ReB 14.0d5 KcB 15.Nc3 Bb4! 1 6. Qg2 Qg2 1 7. Kg2 Bc3 1 8.bc Re2 - +) Bb4 1 4 . Nc3 R h e 8 1 5 . Kd2 (15. Kf2!?) R a 7 ! 1 6 . Q d 5 K c 8 1 7 . K d3 ? ( 1 7. a3 ! ? according to lvanovic, when Minev gives 1 7. .. Re2 1 8.Kd3, but not 1 7... Ra5 1 8.ab! Rd5 {18 ... Ra 1 Ba4!} 1 9.Bd5. After the text it's over) Bf5 1 8 .Kc4 , 0-1 . I f 1 8. Kd2 Be4 a n d . . . Q g 2 . A ft e r 1 8 . K c4 l va n o v i c an alyzes 1 8 . . . Bf8 1 9 .Qc6 Re6 20. Qf3 Qh5 ! ! 2 1 .Qh5 Rc6 22.Kd5 Ra5 23. Kc6 Bd7#. oo

SOURCE

N ik o l ay M i n e v, " M i n ev o n Tactics , " Inside Chess, Vo l.5, No . 1 1 ( J u n e 1 1 , 1 992) ' p.29.

C31 line 1 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 de 4.Ne5 Nd7 5.d4

C32 note 77 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed e4 4.d3 Nf6 S.de N e4 6. Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2 f5 8.Nc3 0-0 ! 9 . N e4 fe 1 O .Qe4 Bf5 -+ ECO, citing

Ke res.

ed 6.Nd3 Ngf6 7 .Nc3 c6 8.Qf3 Nb6 9.Nf2 Bb4 1 O.Bd2 Qe7 11 .Qe2 Qe2 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Consider Blasco- l vanovic, Catanzaro 1 979 which , i nterestingly, reached th e diagrammed position via 1 .e4 e5 2 . Nf3 d5 3.Ne5 de 4.d4 Nd7 5.f4 (C40 note 7 shows

that White could have played 4.Bc4!). Anyway, the game conti nued 5 . . . N h 6

1 24

CORRECTION

M i nev po ints out that this analysis was published by Simon Alapin in the French m agazin e Monde //lustre, dated 1 903, before Keres was even born .

E.C.O. BUSTED!

BUST

Alapin's analysis continues 1 1 .Qc4 Nd7 1 2 . Bd3 Qf6 1 3 .h3 Rae8 1 4 . Kd 1 White has two pawns and Black has attacking chances. oo .

29 .Rd3 Re8 30. Rf5, 1 -0. Nocci made it look rather simple, didn't he? SOURCE

CYB 2/220

SOURCE

N ikolay Minev, "A Look at Simon Alapi n ," Inside Chess, Vo l.2, No . 1 3- 1 4 (July 1 7, 1 989) ' p.28.

C33 note 1 01 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.d4 Bb4 6.e5 Ne4

C32 note 80 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.ed e4 4.d3 Nf6 S.de Ne4 6.Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2 Bf5 8.Nc3 Qe7 9.Be3 B b4 ! ?

7.0f3 d5 8.ed 0-0 9.Nge2 Oh4 1 0.g3 fg 1 1 .hg Qg4 -+ ECO. BUST

Wh ite rehabilitates this line with 7.Kf1 !, when Rut-Ca nners, carr. 1 989-91 went 7 . . . N c3 (7... Bc3 ?! B.bc Oh4 9.0131 Ng3 9 . . . Bb4 is given without co m ment o r evaluation b y EGO. CORRECTION

Nocci-Reuter, carr. 1 99 0 h as provided some evidence with which to judge the merits of 9 . . . Bb4 ! ? , and it doesn't look promising fo r the Falkbeer fans: 1 O .Bd2 B c3 (the C YB editors give 1 O . . . Nd2 1 1 .Kd2 Oe2 12.Be2 Nd7 +=) 1 1 .bc Nd2 1 2 . Kd2 Q e2 1 3 . Be2 0-0 1 4 . Bd3 Bd3 1 5 .cd Rd8 1 6. R h e 1 Kf8 1 7. Rab1 b6 1 8.c4 Nd7 1 9 . Re3 Rea 20.Ne5 Ne5 2 1 .te Re7 22.d4 Rd8 2 3 . Kd3 Red? 24 . R f3 Kg8 25. Ke4 c6 26.d6 f6 27.Rbf1 c5 28 .dc be

1 O.hg Oh 1 1 1 .814 +- was Rut- Tomaso vic, corr. 1 989-90) 8.bc Bc3 9. Ba3 b5 (9.. .Ba 1 1 0.Bd6!) 1 0. Bd6! be (1 0.. .Ba 1 1 1 .0g4 g5 12. 0h5 be 13. 0h6 Ob6! 14.N13! Ob 1 15.Ne 1 Bc3 16.Ke2! Be t 1 7. 016 Oc2 =) 1 1 .Qg4 g5 1 2.Nh3 ! ! Bd2 (12... Ba 1 [12... h5 1 3. 015 and 1 4.Ng5 ++-] 1 3.N14 ! Bd4 14.Nh5 Be5 15.Ng7! Bg7 16.0e4 ++-) 1 3 . Nf2 c3 1 4.N e4 Ba6 (14 ... 0b6 15.Bc5! Ob2 1 6.0g5!) 1 5 .Kf2 Be3 1 6 . Ke1 Ob6 1 7 .Qg5 Bd2 1 8 . Nd2 cd 1 9 . Kd 1 ! , 1 -0. Notes by Rut. SOURCE

CYB 5/1 53.

VOLUME C

1 25

C34 note 21 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 Nf6

27.Ne8 ! Qb2 28.Qg5 Kh8 29.Rh7 Kh7 3 0 . R e 7 K h 8 3 1 . Q h 5 K g 8 3 2 . Q h 7# , H e b d e n - Bo r m , O ra n g e 1 98 7 . N otes based o n annotations by GM Gallagher. SOU RCE Joe Gallagher, Winning with the King 's G a m b i t ( Lo n d o n : B atsfo rd , 1 9 9 2 ) , pp.1 6- 1 8 .

C34 note 22 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 Bh6 7.Nc3 c6

7.Nc3 Nh5 8.Qd3 Nc6 9.N ge2 Be7 1 O.Qb5 f5 1 1 .d5 a6 1 2.Qa4 b5 1 3.Nb5 Bcf7oo ECO. NOVELTY

Instead of 1 3 . . . Bd7 it is worth noting the game E. Donaldson-We i n stock, Seattle 1 990 i n which Black played the bold 1 3 . . . ab ! ? . That e n co u n te r c o n ti n u ed 1 4 .Qa8 Nb4 1 5 .Nd4 0-0 1 6 .Qa3 c5 1 7.dc d5 1 8.Qb3 fe 1 9. Bd2 Na6 20.0-0-0 Nc5 2 1 .Qb5 Ng3 22. Ba5 Qd6 23 .Nb3 N h 1 24. Rd5 Qd5 25. Bc4 Qc4 26.Qc4 Be6, 0-1 /51 (for the complete score see NIC 25,

p. 73).

BUST

White doesn't have to go into these lines at all , however. From the diagram he has 7.Bf4 ! Ne4 8 . Bd3! Qe7 (Hebden- Psakhis,

Moscow 1 986 went 8 .. . f5 9.Ne2 Bg7 1 0.Be4 fe 1 1.Bg5 Bf6 12.Nbc3 Bg5 1 3.hg Og5 1 4.Ne4 Oe3 15.Nf6 KdB 1 6. Qd2! Od2 1 7.Kd2 Nc6 1 8. Raf1 +-) 9 .Ne2 Bg7 1 0 .0-0 0-0 1 1 . Be4 ! Qe4 1 2.Nbc3 Qc6 1 3 .Qd2 d5 1 4.Ng3 Qf6 +- 1 5. Be5 Qh4 1 6. Bg7 Kg? 1 7 . N d5 ! fS 1 8 . Qf4 Nc6 1 9 .Nc7 Rb8 20. Rae1 Kg8 2 1 .d5 Ne7 22.Nh5 ! Qh5 (else 23. Qh6) 23.Re7 b5 24. Rfe1 Rb6 2 5 . d 6 Q h 4 2 6 . g 3 Qf6

1 26

8.Bd3 Qf6 9.e5 de 1 O.Ne4 Qe7 1 1 .de Qe5 1 2.Qe2oo ECO IMPROVEMENT

Wh ite does better to concentrate on his d e v e l o p m e n t b e f o r e r u s h i n g i n to complications. The best way to proceed looks like 8 . Nge2 ! , e .g. 8 . . . Qf6 9.g3! f3

(9.. .fg 1 0.Ng3 Bet 1 1 . Rc1 Qf4 12.Nce2 Oe3 1 3.c4 and 1 4. Rc3 -Gallagher) 1 O.Nf4 Qe7 1 1 . Bd3 Bg7 1 2. Be3 h5 1 3 .Qd2 Nd7 1 4 .0-0-0 Nf8 1 5 . Rhe1 . White's formation presents a pleasing picture of harmony, and after 1 5 . . . N e6 Gallagher notes that b o t h 1 6 . e 5 a n d 1 6 .d5 " lo o k v e ry dangerous" for Black, or White can even play position ally. SOURCE

Ibid., p . 1 9 .

E.C.O. BUSTED!

C34 note 36 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e5 Nh5 5.Qe2 Be7 6.d4 0-0 7.Nc3 d6 B.Bd2 Nc6!

After 1 2 . .Nf5 .

SOURCE

A lexander Bangiev, Developments in the King 's Gambit ( Lo ndo n : Quadrant Marketing Ltd , 1 988) , p.32. 9.0-0-0 Bg4

=+

ECO.

C37 note 2

BUST

I n the diagrammed position White has 9.d5!, mention ed i n passing by Raeckij ( Informant 5 4 / 2 7 9 ) w i t h o u t f u r th e r analysis. Th e move does seem to put a c r i m p i n B l ac k ' s " s l i g h t ad va n tag e " however, since 9 . . . N e5 1 O.Ne5 is out of the question , and 9 . . . Bh4 1 O .g3 followed by 0-0-0 leaves B lack hanging, while 9 . . . N b4 1 0 .0-0-0 also looks unappeali ng. Any help for the Black team?

1 .e4 e5 2 .f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 h6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.g3 d6? 7.gf g4 B.Ng1 Qh4 9.Ke2 Nc6 1 0.Be3

C37 line 1 4 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5 .0-0 gf 6.Qf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qe5 8.Bf7 Kf7 9.d4 Qd4 1 0.Be3 Qf6 1 1 .Bf4 Ne7 1 2.Nc3 Nf5 (diagram) 1 3 .Ne4 Qg6 1 4 .g4 Be7 -+ ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Bangiev, citing Sapi and Sch n e ider, gives 1 3 . Nd5! Qg6 1 4 . Rae 1 Bc5 1 5 . Be3 ReB ! 1 6. Bc5 R e 1 1 7. R e 1 d6 1 8 .Ne7! de 1 9 . Ng6, without evaluation . The reader is encouraged to contemplate the position afte r 1 9 . . . Kg6 if he has a couple of days to kill.

g3 1 1 .Nf3 Bg4 1 2 .Kd2 Bf3 1 3.Qf3 Nd4 1 4.Qg3 + - ECO. BUST

Black needn't be in such a hu rry to exploit his oppo nent's King position : F. Larsen­ Leeuwe n , 1 1 th Carr. 01. (prel im) 1 991 contin ued from the diagram with 1 o ... Bd7! 1 1 .d5 ( 1 1 . Bg2 0-0-0 12. 0d2 f5 13.e5 de 14.fe NeSt -Delabie) Nee? 1 2 . Kd2 f5

VOLUME C

1 27

1 3 . Bg2 fe 1 4 . Be4 0-0-0 1 5 . Kc 1 Nf6 1 6.Nge2 Ne4 1 7.Ne4 Qh5 -+.

C37 note 72 BC0-2 p .354 dism isses the Polerio­ Muzio gambit with the line 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef

SOURCE

CYB 3/223 .

3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gf 6.Qf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qe5 8.Bf7 Kf7 9.d4 Qf5 1 O.g4 Qg6 1 1 .Bf4 Nf6 1 2.Be5 d6 ( ignoring EGO's

C37 note 3 1 .e4 es 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 h6 5.h4 Bg7 6.hg hg 7 .Rh8 Bh8 8.g3 d5 9.gf g4 1 0.Ng5 f6 1 1 .f5 fg 1 2.Qg4 Bd4 ! 1 3.Nc3 Bc3 1 4.bc Qe7 ·++ ECO.

1 2 . . . Be7 which leads to equality ! But in view of the following I 'd stick with the text move ) 1 3.Bf6 Bg4 1 4.Qg2 Rg8 1 5 .Kh1 Bf5 1 6.Qd5 !

+=

BC0-2

BUST BUST

Looking a l i tt l e f u rth er, W h i te h as 1 5. Bg5! Qe4 1 6 .0e4 de 1 7. Bc4, when both 1 7 . . . N e 7 1 8 . f6 N g 6 1 9 . f7 Kf8 20.0-0-0 Nc6 21 .Rh1 +- , and 1 7 . . . Kf8 1 8 .f6 Nd7 1 9 .f7 Ngf6 20 .0-0-0 +- are too risky fo r Black. Th erefore 1 7 . . . Bf5 ! is cal l ed fo r, and Estrin con siders the position "roughly equal" . White should be able to round up the loose e-pawn with a drawn ending. SOURCE

Estrin and G l askov, Play the King 's Gambit, 2 vols. (Oxfo rd : Pergamon Press, 1 982) ' 1 : pp. 1 1 0-1 1 1 .

1 28

An outline of analysis by Tom ih isa Kato, published in Chess Life, is presented below. B lack looks to come out on top in all v a riati o n s . Afte r 1 6 . . . Kf6 1 7 . N c3 {1 7.0b7 c6; 1 7.Rf5 Of5 1 8. 0gB Oft) Qg2 ! 1 8 .Qg2 Rg2 we have three branches : 1 ) 1 9 . Kg2 Nc6 20.Nd5 Kg6 2 1 .Nc7 Rca. 2) 1 9. Rf5 Kf5 20.Rf1 Kg6 21 . Rf8 Rc2 . 3) 1 9. Nd5 Kg6 20 .Nc7 Rc2 2 1 .Na8 Be4. SOURCE

JoeI Benjam i n , "Theo retically Speaking , " Chess Life, December 1 992, p.20.

E.C.O. BUSTED!

C38 l i ne 1 1 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.0-0 h6 6.d4 d6 7.c3 Nc6 8.g3 g4 9.Nh4 f3 1 O.Nd2 Bf6 1 1 .Qb3

After 1 1 ...0-0

Kf6 1 7.Nd2] 1 6.Nd2 is dangerous -Estrin) 1 5 . B h4 Bf5 1 6 .Qe2 Bf6 1 7. Qg2 Bg5 1 8 . Nd2 Qd6 1 9 .Nf3 Nd? 20.Ng5, and Estrin observes th at White's attack was "sufficient for a draw." B h4 1 2.Bf7 Kf8 1 3.Bh5 Qe7 1 4.Nf3 gf +- ECO. BUST

Black should look to the safety of his King with 1 1 . . . Rh7!, when Estrin gives 1 2 .Nf5 Bf5 1 3 .ef Kf8! 1 4.Qb7 Na5 1 5 .Qa6 Nc4 1 6 . N c4 , " w i t h ro u g h l y e q u a l chances". SOURCE

SOURCE

Estri n and G laskov, Play the King 's Gambit, 2 vo ls. (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1 982) , 1 : pp.74-75

C38 note 57 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5 .0-0 h6 6.d4 d6 7.c3 Nc6 8.g3 Nf6 9.gf g4

Estrin and Glaskov, King's Gambit, I : p.78.

C38 note 53 1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3. Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.0-0 h6 6.d4 d6 7.c3 Ne7 8.g3 d5 9.ed fg 1 O. Ne5 gh 1 1 .Kh1 0-0 (diagram) 1 2 . d 6 Q d 6 - + E C O , citi n g Bobby

Fischer.

BUST

K u i nd z h i - M e n , Batu m i 1 97 2 w e n t instead 1 2.Nf7! Rf7 1 3 . Rf7 Kf7 1 4 . Bg5! Kg6 (14 ... hg 1 5. Qh5 KfB [15... Ng6 1 6.d6

VOLUME C

1 29

1 0.Nfd2 d5 1 1 .ed Nd5 1 2.Qe2 Qe7 1 3.Ne4(X) ECO. NOVELTY

I nstead of 1 O .Nfd2 White has a strong try i n 1 0 .Ng5 ! 0-0 (1 0... hg 1 1 .fg Ne4

1 1 .Bf7, or 1 1 . . . Bd7 12.gf Bf6 1 3.Bf7!) 1 1 .e5, and Black is under heavy pressure.

IMPROVEMENT

I n stead of 9 . N c3 Wh ite n eeds to play 9 . Qf3 as i n R e s se g n i e r- Le n tz , corr. 1 9 1 2 , which went 9 . . . Nc6 1 O . Qf4 Bf2 1 1 . Kf2 Qf4 1 2 .Bf4 Nd4 1 3 . N c3 ! B e 6 1 4 . N b5 N bS 1 5 . Bb5 Bd7 1 6 . Be2 Nf6 1 7 .e5 N e4 1 8 . Ke3 d5 1 9 .c4 c6 20. Rad 1 Be6 2 1 . Bf3 f5 22 .ef Nf6 23 . B e5 with a q u ick d raw.

SOURCE

Estrin and G laskov, Play the King's Gambit, vol . 1 (Oxford : Pergamon P ress , 1 982) ' p . 75.

SOURCE

Ibid . , p.96.

C39 note 58

C39 note 89

1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 d6 6.Ng4 Be7 7 .d4 Bh4 8.Nf2 Qg5 9.Nc3 Nf6 1 0.Qf3

Bg3 1 1 .Bd2 Nc6 1 2.Bb5 Bd7 1 3.Bc6 be 1 4.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 5. Nd3, planning e5 and Ne4 +· ECO. BUST

EGO's editor fo r th is section didn 't check his Bilguer's Handbuch. It g ives 1 O . . . Ng4 ! 1 1 . Ncd 1 Nf2 1 2 . Nf2 N c 6 1 3 . c3 Bg3 1 4 . Kd1 (Mortimer-Rosenthal, Paris 1878 went 14.Be2 Bdl 1 5.Bd2 0-0-0 =+) Be6 1 5 .Nh3 Qg7 (15... Qh4!? -SM John Hall) as better fo r Black, though Estrin claims that White can "maintain the balance" with 1 6.Be2!

1 30

1 .e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.ed Bd6 8.d4 Nh5 9.0-0 Qh4 1 O.Qe1 Qe1 1 1 .Ae1 0-0 1 2.Nc3 Bf5 !

1 3.g3 f3 1 4 . B h 6 A e8 1 5 . Nf3 N d 7 1 6.Nh4 Ng3 · + ECO. BUST

Instead of 1 3 .g3 , White can try e ither 1 3 . Ne4 or 1 3 . Bd3 with good play in both cases, e.g. 1 3 .N e4 B e4 1 4 .Re4 f6 1 5 .Ng4 f5 1 6.Nh6 Kg? 1 7. Re6 Rf6 1 8. Rf6 Kf6 1 9 . Bd3 =. Alapin, cr. 1 903 ( ! ) , analyzes 1 3 . Bd3 Be5! 1 4.de Bd3 1 5 .cd Na6 1 6. Rf1 Nb4 1 7.d4 c5 1 8.dc6 Nc6 = (Estri n and Glaskov, King's Gambit, 1 : pp.1 06- 1 07) . M o re r e c e n t l y , d e I a V i l l a - l z e ta , S a l a m a n ca 1 99 0 went 1 3 . N e4 N d 7 1 4 . N d 6 cd 1 5 . Bd3 Bd3 1 6 . Nd3 Rfe8

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1 7 . Bf4 Nf4 1 8 . Nf4 Kg? 1 9 .c4 Rac8 20.b3 Kh6 2 1 . a4 Kg5 22.Ne2 Re3 23. Rab1 Rce8 24 . Kf1 f5 25 .Nc3 a6 26. Rbc1 h5 27.a5 f4 28.b4 f3 29. Re3 Re3 30.c5 de 3 1 .de fg 32 . Kg2 Nf6 33.c6 be 34.dc N e8 35.Nd5 Re2 3 6 . Kf1 Rd2 37. R c5 Kh4 38.Nf6 Rd4 39.Ne8 g3 40.c7 Rd1 41 . Kg2 Rd2 42.Kf3, 1 -0. SOURCE

SOURCE

De Wit-De Ze euw, Nethe rlands 1 989.

C40 note 28 1 .e4 eS 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fe 4.Ne5 Qg5 S.d4 Qg2 6.Qh5 g6 7.817 Ke7 8.Bg5 Nf6 9.Qh4 Oh1 1 O.Kd2

Joe Gallagher, Trends in the King's Gambit ( Londo n : Tre nds Publications, 1 990) , p.33.

C40 note 1 8 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 f5 3.d4 fe 4.Ne5 Nf6 5. Bg5 d6 6.Nc3 de 7.de Qd1 8.Rd1

Bg7 1 1 .Nc3 Qa1 1 2.Nd5

++-

ECO.

BUST

Postal players keep tinkering with this ope n i ng and keep finding ways for Black to hang on. From th e diagram 1 O . . .e3! is distracting, when Elburg- Downey, corr. 1 99 1 continued 1 1 .fe Qg2 1 2 .Kd3 Qf1 1 3 . Kd2 (trying to preseNe c3 for the ON, Nfd7 9.Nd5

+-

ECO.

BUST

8 . . . Bg4! (or 8. . . h6! 9.Bf6 gf 1 0.Nd5 Kdl

1 1 .Nb6 Kc6 12.Na8 fe 1 3.Bc4 Bd6 14.a4 Bg4 1 5. Rd2 Na 6 1 6. BdS Kd l - + H. Tiemann) 9 . Rd2 h6 1 O . Bf6 gf 1 1 .Nd5 Kf7 1 2 .Nc7 Bb4 1 3 .c3 BaS 1 4. Bc4 Kg6 1 5 . R d 6 ( 1 6 . Na 8 Nc6 1 7. b4 Nb4 is interesting -ed) Nd7 1 6.Na8 Ra8 1 7 . Bd5 N e5 1 8.Bb7 Rb8 1 9 . Be4 Kg? 20. R a6 Bb6, 0- 1 /42.

since Black can defend if it develops Nd2-e4 without check -ed) Nc6 1 4 .Nc3 Qg2 1 5 . Kd3 Ne5 1 6.de Kf7 1 7. Bf6 g5 1 8 .Qh5 Kg8 1 9 .Bh8 b6 20 .Bf6 Ba6 0-1 , in view of 2 1 .Nb5 Bb5 22.c4 Bc4 23.Kc3 Bb4 2 4 . K b 4 c 5 (Eiburg). Afte r 1 O . . . e 3 ! Allo i n - Downey, corr. 1 99 1 diverged with 1 1 . Ke2 Bg7 1 2 . Nc3 Og2 1 3 . Nd5 Kf8 1 4 . Ne3 Qe4 1 5 .f4 d6 1 6 . Bf6 de 1 7.de Bf6, 0-1 (18.Qf6 Bg4 is painful -ed). F inally, if Wh ite avoids these lines with 1 O.Ke2 he runs into 1 o .. Bg7 1 1 . Nc3 Qf3 ! 1 2.Nf3 ef 1 3 . Kf3 Kf7, and 0- 1 /56 was the result in Jackson-Downey, corr. 1 990-92.

VOLUME C

.

1 31

SOURCE

CYB 7/226.

C40 note 40 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Ne5 Nc6 4.Nc6 de 5.d4

es 7.Ne6 Qe7 8.Qh5 g6 9.Qh3 Nf6 1 0.Nc3 c6 1 1 .0-0 Na6 +- ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Nf6 6.e5 Ne4 7.Be3 cs 8.g3 cd 9.Qd4 +- ECO. BUST

From the diagram Black has 5 . . . Q h4 ! , when H.Tiemann analyzes 6 .ef (6. e5 Be6 7.c3 0-0-0 B.Bd3 c5 9.Be3 c4 1 O.Bc2 g5

1 1 .Nd2 f4 12.Nf3 Qh5 1 3.Bd2 g4 14.Ng1 Bd5 15.f3 Qh4 1 6.Kf1 Nh6 1 7.Be4 g3 18.h3 Be4 19.fe RgB 20. 0e2 Ng4 2 1 . 0c4 Nh2 22. Ke 1 f3, 0- 1134 was Ruben­ Sorensen, Copenhagen 1 876) Bf5 7 . Bd3! Bg4 ! 8. Be2 Nf6 9 . Bg4 (9.h3 Be6 =+) Ng4 1 O.Qe2 Kd7 1 1 . Be3 ReB 1 2 . Kd2 g6 1 3 .g3 Qh3 -+. SOURCE

Tiemann and Vetter, Lettisches Gambit ( D us se ldo r f : S c h ac h ve r lag M a n fred Madler, 1 980) , p .32.

C41 l i ne 1 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Be6 4.Be6 fe 5.d4 ed 6.Nd4

1 32

6 . . . Nf6! 7.Nc3 Qd7 8 .0-0 e5 9. Nde2 Be?, and 1 0 . . . 0-0 is equal according to Pac h m a n , cited by G M To ny Kosten . B l ac k wo u l d n e ed to c o n s id e r th e consequences of 7 .e5, but in any case this line is bette r than EGO's. SOURCE

Ton y Kosten , Winning with the Philidor ( New York: Henry Holt and Co . , 1 992), p.1 o. GM Kosten has done a good job of bringing the Ph ilidor up to date ; he will be o u r gu ide through the next few entries.

C41 l i ne 3 1 .e4 es 2 .Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4 ed 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.0-0 Nc6 7 .Re1 f4 8.Bf4 Qf6 9 . Q d 2 N e 5 1 0 . Be2 B g 4 1 1 .f3 B d 7 1 2.Bg3 0-0-0 1 3.f4 +- ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Afte r 1 0 . B e 2 , B l ack h as th e i m provement 1 O . . . Be7! 1 1 . Nf3 Nf3 1 2 .Bf3 Nf7 = + , since Kosten notes that Black can play 1 3 . . . 0-0 and 1 4 . . . Ne5, or perhaps . . .g5 and . . . h 5 . SOURCE

Ibid . , p.29.

E.C.O. BUSTED!

C41 note 1 2 1 .e4 eS 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 fS 4 .de fe 5.Ng5 dS 6.e6 Bb4 7.e3 BeS 8.Ne4 Be7

After 1 3. Bd3

Black's extra center pawn . An optim istic assessment, perhaps, in view of Black's three pawn islands; yet with a complex endgame co ming up an evaluation of =100 can't be too far off base . 9.Qg4oo ECO.

SOURCE

Ibid., p . 1 33.

BUST

I n Sax-Koste n , Hastings 1 990-1 Wh ite d e m o n s t r a t e d a v i r t u a l l y fo r c e d advantag e : 9 . N g 5 ! B g 5 1 O . O h 5 g 6 1 1 .Qg5 Qg5 1 2 . Bg5 Be6 ( 1 2. . . c6) 1 3 . Bf4 Nc6 1 4 . Bc7 Kd7 1 5 . Bf4 Re8 1 6.Na3 Bg4 1 7 . Kd2 Nf6 1 8 .f3 Be6 1 9 .N b5 + - . SOURCE

C41 note 54 1 .e4 eS 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 ed 4.Nd4 g6 5 . N e 3 B g 7 6 . B e3 Nf6 7 . Q d 2 0-0 8.0-0-0 Ne6 9.Ne6 be 1 O.Bh6

Ibid . , p.24.

C41 note 1 1 7 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.de Ne4 5.Qd5 NeS 6 .Bg5 Qd7 7.ed Bd6 8.Ne3 0-0 9.0-0-0 Ne6 1 O.Be3 Ne7 1 1 .Qe4 b6 1 2 .Be5 be 1 3.Bd3 (diagram) Ng6 1 4.Bg6 hg 1 5 .Ne4 + = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

1 3 . . . Rb8 !, th reate ning 1 4 . . . Rb4, is better than EGO's continuation , wh ich seems to b e d i r e c t e d ag a i n s t a p h a n t o m " sac- attack" at h 7 . Koste n analyzes 1 4 . N e4 Qc6 1 5 . N d6 cd 1 6 . Qe4 Qe4 1 7 . B e4 R d 8 1 8 . R h e 1 h6 = + , n o t i n g

ReB 1 1 .Bg7 Kg7 1 2.Bd3 Bd7, and 1 3 ... Qb8 += ECO. IMPROVEMENT

VOLUME C

1 33

Kosten points o ut an idea Sici lian D rago n , and plays fro m th e diag ram , analyzing 1 1 1 2 .f3 Qe7 1 3. h4 d5 1 4 .h5 Rb2

from the 1 O. . .Bh6! .Qh6 Rb8

( 1 4 . . . Qb4 1 5. hg fg 1 6. e 5 Ob2 1 7. Kd2 Bf5 Filipjenko) 1 5 . Kb2 Q b4 1 6 . Kc 1 Qc3 1 7. hg fg 1 8 .ed Bf5 1 9 . Bd3 Qa3 2 0 . Kd2 Bd3 21 .cd Ob2 2 2 . Ke1 ReB 23 . Kf1 Qe2 -++. A hopeful variation , perh aps , but an i n d i c at i o n of th e acti o n B l ack c a n generate. SOURCE

Ibid., p.54. CORRECTION

C41 note 64 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 N bd7 5. Bc4 Be7 6.de de 7.Bf7 Kf7 8.Ng5 Kg6

Take a look at th is position , analyze it, or eve n play a few blitz games from here. Black should win nearly every time : as Ko s t e n p o i nts o u t, W h i t e ' s K i n g i s stranded in the center (1 7. 0-0 Bh2) and B lack has th e weake n ed g 3 and g4 squares to aim at, not to me ntion the dynamic potential of three pieces for the Q u e e n . The refore " - + " is a better evaluation o f the diagrammed position . SOURCE

Ibid., p . 1 04.

C41 note 69

9 . f4 ef 1 O . N e 6 Q g 8 1 1 . N c7 R b8 1 2.Bf4CXl ECO.

1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 N bd7 s.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7 .Qe2 ed 8.Nd4 NeS 9.Bb3 cS 1 O.NfS BfS 1 1 .ef

U nclear is correct, but Tim Harding (Philidor's Defense: A Re-Appraisal, 2nd ed . [Dallas: Chess Digest, 1 984] , p. 1 8) suggests that Black can try fo r more with 1 1 . . . N e5 in ste ad of 1 1 . . . R b 8 , and if 1 2 .Na8 Bg4 1 3.Ne2 (13.Qd4!?-ed.) Qc4 1 4 .Nc7 Qe4 yields a strong attack. This line is worth investigating, but let's move on to EGO's seco nd option fro m the diagram, which goes 9.h4 h5 1 O .f4 ef 1 1 .Ne2 Bd6 1 2 .e5 Ne5 1 3 . Nf4 Kh6 1 4 . Nf7 Nf7 1 5.Ne6 Kh ? 1 6 .Nd8 Rd8CXl .

1 34

E.C.O. BUSTED!

ReS 1 2.Bd5 Qd7 1 3.f4 Nc6 1 4.g4 Nd4 1 5 .Qd1 b5 1 6.Bg2 +- ECO. IMPROVEMENT

1 1 . . . Qd7 ! After this move why should Black stand any worse? Kosten cites Palciauskas-Staal, Corr. 1 975 , Fabiano­ Koste n , S a n B e n n e d e tto 1 9 9 1 , and Pfannkuche-S . Bucker, Sudloh n 1 986 to prove h is poi nt, and analyzes 1 2 .Nd5 , 1 2 . Bf4, and 1 2 .f4. Here's a sample line from the diagram without notes: 1 1 . . .Qd7! 1 2 .f4 N c6 1 3 .g4 d5 1 4 .g5 c4 1 5 .gf Bf6 1 6 . Ba4 Qf5 1 7. Bc6 be 1 8 .Bd2 Qc2. Get Kosten's book to fill i n the blanks! =.

SOURCE

Ibid . , pp . 1 1 0- 1 1 3 .

C42 line 1 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Ne4 4.Nc3 Nc3 S.dc f6

(Sze/1-Fedorov, Berlin 1987 went 10 ...g5 1 1 .Nf5 Qg6 12.Bd3 Oh5? 13. Qh5 Rh5 14.Ng7! Bg7 15.Bg6 Ke 7 16.Bh5 d6 1 7.h4 + -, while Kuznekov-Potapo v, Rossija 1992 saw 1 0... Nc6 1 1 . Qg6 Qg6 12.Ng6 Rh5 1 3.g4 Rh3 1 4.Bf1 Rh7 15.Bd3 Rh3 112- 112) 1 1 .0g3 g5 1 2.Nf5 Qg6 (Informant 551300 improves with 12... Qh7 13.0-0 d5! 14.Bd5 Bf5 15.Rf5 Qf5 16.Bb7 c6 1 7.Ba8 Rh7oo} 1 3. Bd3 {13. 0-0J? d5J 14.Bd5/ oo) d5 1 4 . N e 7 Qf7 1 5. Nc8 e4 (15... Kc8 1 6.Bf5 Nd7 1 7.Be3 and 1 8.0-0-0 +-) 1 6. Be2 Kc8 1 7. Be3 Bd6 1 8 .Of2 Qe6 (18... Rh2 19.Rh2 Bh2 20.g3 Qh7 21.Bg4! Nd722. 0-0-0 c6 23. Rh 1 Bg3 24. Rh7 Bf2 25.Bd7 + + -) 1 9 .h3 Nd7 20.0-0-0 Ne5 2 1 . Rhf1 . Now 21 . . . Be7! would have held Wh ite to a slight advantage. Notes based o n an notatio n s by P i n te r and Sze l l ( Informant 44/372) . I n th eir an notations, however, they give the move 7 ...c6! "" as better than 7 . . . Qe7, but Larry Evans points out that 7 . . .c6 "is now suspect" because of 8.f5 d5 9.fg de 1 O.Qh5 Kd7. SOURCE

Larry Evans, " Evans o n Chess," Chess Life, J une 1 993, p.1 8.

C42 note 2� 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Ne5 Ne4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qe4 d6 6.f4 de 7 .fe f6

6.0-0 d6 7.Nh4 g6 8.f4 Qe7 9.f5 Qg7 1 O.Qf3 Be7 =+ ECO. NOVELTY

Wh ite should strike immediately with 6 . N h4 ! ? , which has been tested i n a n u m b e r of g a m e s . S z e i i -A u te n ri e t h , Magyarorszag 1 987 contin ued 6 . . .g6 7.f4

QeZ (7... d6? 8. f5 gf 9. Qh5 Kd7 1 0.Nf5! 8 .f5 Qg7 9 . fg hg 1 O . Og4 Kd8 + + -) VOLUME C

1 35

8.Ne3 Qe5 9.Qe5 fe 1 0.d4 Bb4 1 1 .Be4 Rf8 1 2 .Be3 Bg4 1 3.h3 Bh5 1 4.de Ne6, with compensation -ECO. BUST

Wh at kind of model is this? If 1 1 . . . de is too risky, then sure ly 1 1 . . . Nc6 or 1 2 . . . Nc6 is fine fo r Black. No m atter, as Wh ite can strengthen his play from the diagram with 8.d4! fe 9.de Nc6 1 O.Nc3 ! Qe5 1 1 .Qe5 Ne5 1 2 .Nb5 Bb4 (12 . . . Bd6 1 3.Nd6 is unacceptable) 1 3 .c3 B aS 1 4 . Bf4 0-0 1 5 . Be5 Re8 1 6 .0-0-0! ReS 1 7 .Rd8 Kf? 1 8 .Bc4 Ke? 1 9 . Rg8 + - . IMPROVEMENT

He rtan also im proves o n EGO's note 24, which , i n stead of 6.f4 , goes 6.d4 de ?.de Nc6 8 . Bb5 Bd? 9 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 1 0 .Nc3 Ne5 1 1 .Be3 Bb5? 1 2 .Nb5 N c6 1 3 .Na7 ! , etc. + = . But th e fau lt l ies with 1 2 . . . Nc6?, not 1 1 . . . Bb5 , for if 1 2 . . . a6! 1 3 .Nd4 (1 3.Nc3 -ed) Nc4 ! the position favors Black. =

SOURCE

Charles Hertan , "The Daring Damiano," Chess Life, March 1 990, p.1 6.

g6 6.Ne3 Bg7 7. Be4 Be6 8.Be6 Ke6 9.f4 Kf7 1 0.e5 Rea 1 1 .0-0 Ne6 1 2 .d5 de 1 3.de Qd1 1 4. Nd 1 be = ECO.

T h e C oc h r a n e g a m b i t . A l t h o u g h conventional wisdom says Black should retu r n the piece for equality, he certain ly doe s n 't h ave to accept th e simplified position reached i n EGO's line. H ere are a cou ple of fighting ideas: NOVELTY

From th e diagram Konikowski analyzes 5 . . . c5 (5... g6 6.Nc3 Kg? 7.Be2 d5 8.e5

Ne4 9.Ne4 de 1 0. 0-0 Nc6 1 1 . Be3 Be ? 1 2. Qd2 Re8oo) 6 . d c Nc6 7 . Bc4 B e 6 8 . B e 6 K e 6 9 . 0 - 0 (9. Nc3 de!) d 5 (9 . . . dc!?) 1 O .e5 N e4 ( 1 O . . . Ne5?! 1 1 . Qe2 Bc5 12.Bf4 Qd6 1 3.Nc3 RheB 1 4 . Rfe 1 Nd7 1 5.Rad1 + -) 1 1 .Qg4 Kf? 1 2 .Nc3 Nc3 1 3 . Q f5 K e 8 1 4 . bc g 6 1 5 . Q h 3 Bc5 1 6 . Bh 6oo. H appy h u nting! SOURCE

J . Konikowski, "Theory of the Russian Gam e," Fernschach International, March 1 992, p . 1 44.

C42 note 82 C42 note 26 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3 .Ne5 d6 4.Nf7 Kf7 5.d4

1 36

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Ne5 d6 4.Nf3 Ne4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 Be6 9.Ne3 Ne3 1 O.be de 1 1 .Be4

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Qc8 1 2.Ng5 Bf5 1 3.Qf3 Be4 1 4.Qe4 g6 1 5.Qh4 +- ECO. BUST

GM Michael R hode suggests 1 1 . . . Bc8! = , obse rvi n g that " . . . by the time Wh ite recove rs the paw n , B lack w i l l h ave developed his pieces with a good gam e ." Rohde offers no supporting analysis, but on the other hand we can't fi nd any games in wh ich Wh ite h as ventured 9.Nc3 afte r 8 . . . Be6. Proof by silence? SOURCE

M ichael Rohde, "Game of the Month ," Chess Life, January 1 993 , p.34.

1 8 . Qc1 Qd4 1 9 . R b 1 b 6 20 .0d1 Qc5 2 1 . Q a4 d4 22 . Bd3 Qc3 23 . Rfd1 Bh6 24 . R b3 Qc5 . At this point the score becomes garbled, but 1 /2-1 /2 in 33. Note the recurring them e of . . . Re2 and picking off the d-pawn. SOURCE

N I C 26, pp.66-67.

C43 note 1 00 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 ed 4.e5 Ne4 5.Qd4 d5 6.ed Nd6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Qf4

C43 note 1 6 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Ne4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Ne5 Nd7 6.Nd7 Bd7 7.0-0 Q h4 8.c4 0-0-0 9.c5 g6 1 O.Nc3 Bg7 1 1 .Ne2

NOVELTY

g5 1 2.f3 Nf6 1 3.Be3 g4 1 4.g3

+-

ECO.

BUST

Black should develop more calmly and sensibly with 1 1 . . . R he8, when there can follow 1 2.b4 (lvanchuk-Rozentalis, Manila

1992 went 12.a4 Ng5 13. Ra3 h6!, and now 1 4. Be3oo is t h e sugges tio n o f Rozentalis. The game actually wen t 14.Bc2 ? Re2! 1 5. Qe2 Ne6 and 1 6. . . Nd4, 0- 1/33) N g 5 1 3 . b 5 K b 8 1 4 . B f4 R e 2 1 5 . Bg5 Qg5 1 6 . Be 2 Qf4 1 7 .c6 B e 6

Karpov introduced 8 . . . Nf5! in his 1 990 m atch w i t h Kasparov, wh ich a l l ows 9 . . . B d 6 to e x p l o i t W h i t e ' s Q u e e n placement. ECO considers five options on B l ack's e ig hth t u rn , all of wh ich are thought to grant Wh ite h is customary edge. Karpov's move is no cure-all, but the exclamation mark is to remind us that a l l t h e g o o d i d e as h a v e n ' t b e e n discove red yet, even o n move eight of the ancient Petroff. SOURCE

Kasparov-Karpov, m/1 0 , New York 1 990.

VOLUME C

1 37

C44 1ine 9 1 .e4 eS 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.e3 Nf6 4.d4 Ne4 S.dS BeS 6.de Bf2 7.Ke2 be 8.Qa4 fS 9.Nbd2 0-0 1 0.Ne4 fe 1 1 .Qe4 Bb6

After 7.Bg5

Black seems to come out on top (see the

article cited below for a detailed analysis). Therefo re, G M Wolff g ives 8 .0-0 h 6 9.Bh4 g5!? 1 0 .Ng5 (1 0.Bg3oo) h g 1 1 . Bg5 R g 8 , w h e n h e favo rs B l ac k . Wo lff concludes that 7 . . . Nf6! " . . .is a se rio us c h al l e n g e to the correctness of this gambit, which is usually thought to be bad for B lack."

1 2 .Kd1 ! dS 1 3.Qe5 BfS!oo ECO. BUST

It seems that White h as better i n the odd-looking 1 2 . Kd2!, which prepares to support Bd3 after Black's . . . Bf5 . O n e game went 1 2 . Kd2 ! d 6 (or 12... d5. In

SOURCE

Patrick Wolff, "Theoretically Speakin g ," Chess Life, January 1 993, p.22.

either case Black will drop another pawn ed) 1 3.Bd3 Bf5 1 4 .Qc6 + - .

C44 note 26

-

SOURCE

Hector-Sandstrom , Koben h avn 1 99 1 .

1 .e4 eS 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.e3 dS 4.Qa4 f6 S.BbS Nge7 6.ed QdS 7.d4 Bg4 8.Be4 Qe4 9.Be3 Bf3 1 O.Nd2

C44 1ine 1 6 1 .e4 eS 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.d4 ed 4.Be4 BeS 5.e3 de 6.Nc3 d6 7.Bg5 (diagram ) Nge7 8.Nd5 f6 9.Bf6 gf 1 0.Nf6 Kf8 1 1 .Qe1 , with compensation -ECO. BUST

I n the d i agram m ed positi o n B l ack should try 7 . . . Nf6!, as proposed by Sigurd Swenson in a letter to Chess Life. If 8 . Nd5 Black has 8 . . . Bf2 !, fou nd by l m a Doofus (sic) and also discussed in Chess Life. The resulting variations are com plex, but

1 38

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Qg6 "' "' .gf, and "1 2.0-0-0

+-

ECO.

BUST

I n ste ad of 1 O . . . Qg6 B l ack h as the winn i ng shot 1 O . . . Bd 1 !, when N iedermayer- Krantz, 1 3th Eu ropean Corr. C h . , 1 980-81 continued 1 1 . Kd 1 (1 1.Ne4 Ba4 12.b3 ed 13.cd Na5 -++) Qg2 1 2 . Kc2 ed 1 3 . R ag 1 ( 1 3. Bd4 Nf5 1 4. Ra e 1 Be l 15. Bb5 0-0 -+) Oh3 1 4 .Qb3 Na5 1 5 . Bf7 Kd8 1 6.Qa4 Od7 1 7 .Qa5 de 1 8.Ne4 Nc6 1 9 . Q h 5 N e 5 2 0 . R d 1 Bd6 2 1 . N d 6 cd 22.Rd6 Qd6 23 . Rd 1 Qd1 24.Qd1 Kc? 25. Bd5 ef 26.0e2 R ad8 27. Bc4 Rd6, 0-1 , since 28 .Qf2 Nc4 29 .Qc5 Rc6, or 28 .b3 R hd8 29.Qf2 Rd2 , or 28. Bb3 Ng4! Notes based on annotations by Estrin. SOURCE

Estrin and G laskov, Three Double King Pa wn Open ings ( C o rapo l i s : C h ess Enterprises, 1 982) , pp.85-86. Anyth ing with Yakov Estrin's n ame on it is worth buying.

Estrin cites Ch ristov's research, an outline of wh ich goes 1 3 . . . e3 (13. . . Nh6 is shown to lose) 1 4 .d3 e2 1 5 . Bg5 f6 1 6.Qd5 Be6 (again 16... Nh6 won 't work) 1 7.Nc6 Kf7 1 8 . N d 8 K e 7 ( 1 8 . . . Kg6 1 9. Qe6 Oa t

20. Qe8 Kg5 2 1 .Nf7 Kh4 22. 0e4 Kh3 23. Qf3 Kh2 24. Qe2 Ba3 25.Qh5 Kg2 26. Qg4 with perpetual check) 1 9 .Nc6 Kf?, and we have another perpetual check (Estrin and Glaskov, Three Double King Pawn Openings, p.69) . IMPROVEMENT

I nstead of 6.0a4 White does better to p l ay 6 .d4 ! , when the game J u rgens­ K re m p e l , c o r r. 1 9 8 9 - 9 1 p roceeded 6 . .. Qg2 7 . Rf1 Bd6 ! 8 .Nc6 be! 9 . Bc6 Ke7 1 O . Ba8 Ba6! 1 1 .Nd2 Nf6 1 2 .Bc6 Bd3!? 1 3 . Be4 ! ! Ne4 (13. . . Be4 1 4. 0e2) 1 4.Qf3 Bf1 1 5 .Qe4 Kd8 1 6.Qg2 Bg2 1 7.f3! Bh2 1 8 . Kf2 B h 3 1 9 . N e 4 h 6 2 0 . B e3 Bf5 2 1 . R h 1 , and now 21 . . . Bd6 is best (notes

by Falchetta). SOURCE

CYB 7/232 .

C44 n ote 37 "' .e4 es 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 de 5.Ne5 Qg5 !? 6.0a4 Qg2 7 .Be6 be 8.Qe6 Kd8 9.Rf1 B h3 ! "' O.Qa8 Ke7 "' "' .Kd"' Qf"' "1 2 .Ke2 Bf5 ! "1 3.Na3!oo ECO.

CORRECTION

According to the latest analysis this line should end in a draw by perpetual check.

C44 note 1 41 "' .e4 es 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.d4 ed 4.e3 de 5.Be4 eb 6.Bb2 d6 +- ECO.

This note gives two separate lines for Wh ite, each ending in a clear advantage for the first player. EGO's coverage here

VOLUME C

1 39

is very supe rficial , since both seventh moves cited are really second- rate tries . F i rst , therefore , we'll dispose of the Encyclopedia 's r e co m e n d a t i o n s , a n d then demonstrate a proper strategy for White. From the diagram ECO co ntinues with 7.Nc3 and 7.Qb3 : BUST 1)

7.Nc3 Be6 8.Nd5 + - ( ECO). I n the fi rst place , Black can now play 8 . . . Na5 or 8 . . . Ne5 (Schwarz), stan ding we ll e nough i n each case. But even better is 7 .Nc3 Be7 ! 8.Qb3 N h6 9.Nd5 f6 1 0 . 0-0 Na5 - + , as i n Csom- Barczay, Budapest 1 967.

with m utual chances (although Black won here) . Szabo-Kocsis, corr. 1 970 continued 1 2 .f5 e5 1 3 .Nc3 h6 1 4 .Ne6 c6 1 5 .Rad1 Ne6 1 6.fe Qc7 1 7. Kh1 Be7 1 8.0c4 Qa5 1 9.a4 Qc5 20.Qb3 Qb6 21 .Qa2 Ng4 22. Bc1 Rf8 23.Rf8 Kf8 24.Rf1 Kg8 25.h3 Nf6 26.Rf6 Bf6 2 7 . e 7 Kh7 2 8 . Qf7 Qf2 2 9 . e 8=0 ReB 30.Qe8 Bh4, 0-1 . SOURCE

R o l f S c h w a r z , G o ring G a mbit ( H e i d e l b e rg : S c h a c h v e r l ag R u d i Sch maus, 1 978), pp.63-65.

C44 note 1 42

BUST 2)

7.Qb3 Nh6 8. Na3 Bd7 9. Bc3 + - ( ECO). T h i s l i n e was l i f t e d f ro m Bilguer's Handbuch, and refers to a game between amate u rs dated 1 8 75 ! B l ack s h o u l d instead play 7. . . Na5 8. Bf7 Ke7 9 .Qd5 c6

1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 ed 4.c3 de 5.Bc4 cb 6.Bb2 Bb4 7.Nc3 Nge7 8.Ng5 Ne5 9.Qh5

(not 9. . . Nt6?, as given in The Goring Gambit [Dallas: Chess Digest, 1 976], p.24, because 1 0.816 gt 1 1 . 8h5 wins -Schwarz) 1 O . Qg5 Nf6 . Now Schwarz credits Botte rill and Harding with 1 1 . Bh5 Nc4 1 2 . Bc3 h6 1 3.Qh4 g5 1 4 .Ng5 hg 1 5 .Qg5 Ne5 1 6 .Be5 Qa5 - + . IMPROVEMENT

Best play from the diagram is probably 7.0-0 Be6 8 . Be6 fe 9.Qb3 Qd7 1 O. Ng5 Nd8 1 1 .f4 Nf6 g6 1 O.Qh6 Nc4 1 1 .Qg7

+-

ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

9 . . .g 6 is a horrible move . Black has to try 9 . . . N 7g 6 , w h i ch m ai n tai n s the h it o n Wh ite's Bc4 and plans 1 o . . .d 6 o r ... d5, when . . . Bg4 would be cruel. Who's better? Hard to tell , but 7 . . . Nge7 can't be Black's best defense i n any case. SOURCE

Ibid., p.66.

1 40

E.C.O. BUSTED!

C45 note 29 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 ed 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc6 be 6.e5 Qe7 7 .Qe2 Nd5 8.c4 Nb6 9.Nd2 Bb7 1 0.b3 0-0-0 1 1 .Bb2

6.Nd4 Bc5 7.Be3 Nd5 8.ed Nd4 9.Bd4 Bd4 1 0.Qd4 0-0 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Wh ite should continue as in Gersch­ viller-Saltzman n , Switzerland 1 965 with 6.Bf4 ! d6 7.Nd4 Ne5? (7. . .Be7; 7... Nd4

B. Od4 Be l, but += in any case -Minev) 8. Be5! de 9 . Bb5 Nd7? 1 O.Ne6l, 1 -0. SOURCE

N i ko l ay M i n ev, " M i n ev o n Tactics , " Inside Chess, Vol.5, No.7 (April 1 3, 1 992), p .2 9 .

C47 note 21 Q e 6 1 2 . 0 - 0 - 0 B e 7 1 3 . f4 R h ea 1 4 . N f3 + = E C O .

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 N c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.Nd5 Ne4 6.Qe2 f5 7.Ng5 d3 a .cd Nd4 9.Ne4 Ne2 1 0.Bg5

NOVELTY

From the diagram Black recently tried 1 1 . . .c5!?. There followed 1 2.0-0-0 d6 1 3.ed Qd6 1 4.Qg4 Kb8 1 5. Be2 h5 1 6.Qf5 Qh6oo. SOURCE

Chandler-Adams, Hastings 1 99 1 -2.

C47 note 1 6 1 .e4 e5 2 . Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.Nd5 h6 Be7 1 1 .Be7 Qe7 1 2 .Ne7 fe 1 3.Nc8 ed 1 4.Be2 de 1 5.Nd6 = ECO. BUST

G M N u n n points out that White can probably win with 1 3 .Nd5 ! (13... Nd4 14.Nc7

KdB 15.Na8 Nc2 16. Kd2 Na t 1 7.de -ed.) but u nfortunately he can't get that far. The move that really cracks this line wide open is 1 O . . . Nf4l !, after which White can pack his pieces, e.g. 1 1 . Bf4 (11.Bd8 Nd5 -ed) Bb4 1 2. Kd1 0-0 -++ .

VOLUME C

1 41

SOURCE

John N u n n , New Ideas in the Four Knights ( london : Batsford, 1 993) , p.31 .

C47 note 23 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.Nd5 Ne4 6.Qe2 f5 7 .Ng5 d3 8 .cd Nd4 9.Qh5 g6 1 O.Qh4 c6 1 1 .de cd 1 2.ed Bg7 1 3.Qg3 0-0 1 4.d6!?oo ECO.

Rd8 1 3.Na4

+=

ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

Accord ing to analysis by Sh irov Black s h o u ld play 1 2 . . . Be6! , w h ich not o n ly looks more harmon ious but has the virtue of sto pping White's eventual c4 central jab. Shirov continues with 1 3 . Na4 Bd6 ( 1 3. . . Bd2!? 1 4. Rd2 Ndl) 1 4 . Be3 Nd7, fol lowed by 1 5 . . .c5 = . SOURCE

N IC 27, p.99.

BUST

Continuing from the diagram, Mishuchkov­ Mal i n i n corr. 1 99 1 co ncluded convi n ­ cingly with 1 4 . . . Q a5 1 5 . Bd2 ( 1 5. Kd 1 Qd5! 1 6. Bd3 b5 ·+) R e B 1 6 . Kd 1 Qa4 1 7 . b3 N b3 1 8 . Bc4 ! Qc4 1 9 . ab Qg4 ! 20.Qg4 fg 2 1 . R a4 h 6 2 2 . R e4 (22.Ne4 b5 23. Rb4 aS ·++) Rf8 23 . h4 hg 24.h5 a5 ! 25. Bg5 (25.hg Ra6 26.Re7 Rd6 27.Rh 7 Rg6!) b5 26.h6 Bc3 27 .Re3 Bd4 28.Re4 Ba1 29 .Kd2 Bb7! , 0-1 . Notes based o n annotations by Malinin.

C48 1 i ne 9 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Ba4 Bc5 6.Ne5 0-0 7 .Nd3 Bb6 8.e5 NeB 9.0-0 d6 1 O.ed Nf6 1 1 .d7 Bd7 1 2.Bd7 Qd7 1 3.Ne1 Rae8 1 4 .d3 Ng4 1 5.Nf3

SOURCE

N IC 26, p.81 .

C47 note 42 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.Nd4 Bb4 6.Nc6 be 7.Bd3 d5 8.ed Qe7 9.Qe2 cd 1 0 .Qe7 Ke7 1 1 . B d 2 c 6 1 2.0-0-0

1 42

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Nf3 1 6.Qf3 Nf2 1 7 .Nd5 Qd5 1 8.Qd5 Nh3 = ECO.

Informant 54/302.

C48 note 51

BUST

B l ack can g rab the b rass ri n g with 1 5 . . .f5 ! 1 6 . h 3 Qd 6 ! , w h e n we h ave reach ed, by tran spositi o n , R ufe n acht­ Scebenjuk, corr. 1 984-7 (the move order

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Ba4 Bc5 6.Ne5 0-0 7.Nd3 Bb6 8.e5 NeB 9.Nd5? d6

was 1 4.Nf3 Ng4 15.h3 f5 1 6.d3 Qd6 -can White exploit this difference ?). The game continued 1 7.hg Nf3 1 8 .Qf3 (1 8.gf3 Qg3 19. Kh 1 Qh3 20.Kg 1 fg -++ Scebenjuk) fg 1 9. Qd5 Qd5 20 . N d5 Bf2 ! 2 1 . K h 1 Re5 22. Nf4 Bg3 23. Bd2 R ef5 24. Rae1 g5 -++. SOURCE

Informant 45/363

� ft � · �1 . . .

..

.

B:

C48 note 39 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Ba4 Nf3 6.Qf3 c6 7.0-0 d6 8.d3 Be7

1 0 .c3? ! Qh4 1 1 .Ne3 Qe4

-+

ECO.

BUST

I n t h e d ia g ra m m ed position Wh ite sho u ld play 1 O.Ne3 ! with a solid position , e . g . 1 0 . . . Q g 5 1 1 . e d (Short-Timman,

Linares 1 992 went 1 1 .14!? Qg6 12.0-0 f6!, when Timman gives 13. Kh 1 ! ? c6oo) Nd6 1 2 .0-0, and now Huebner analyzes 1 2 . . . N4f5 1 3 .Ne1 Ne3 1 4 .fe Bg4 1 5.Nf3 Qh5 1 6.Qe1 c6, plann ing 1 7 . . . Rae8oo. SOURCE

9.h3 h6 1 0.Bb3 Be6

=

N u nn- H uebner, Munich 1 991 (Informant 5 1 /305) . See also lnformant55131 4 for an interesting game in this line.

ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

C49 line 5

From the diagram White has 9.Nd5! Nd7

(9... Nd5? 1 0.ed b5 1 1 .dc ba 12.c7 wins -Adams) 1 0 . N e 7 Q e 7 1 1 . c 3 + = , o n acco u nt of the B ishop pair. K amsky­ Adams, Dortm und 1 992.

1 .e4 eS 2 .Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bc3 B.bc Ne7 9.Nh4 c6 1 O.Bc4 d5 1 1 .Bb3 Qd6 1 2.f4 de 1 3.de Qc5 1 4.Kh1

SOURCE

VOLUME C

1 43

fg 1 2.Rf8 Kf8 1 3.Qf3, planning 1 4.Rf1 ECO.

+­

BUST

Black should si mply play 1 1 . . . de ! with safe equality. SOURCE

N u n n , Four Knights, p. 1 1 0 .

C52 note 72 Ng4 1 5.f5

+·

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bb4 5.c3 BaS 6.d4 d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 B.de Bb6 9.Bb5 a6 1 O.Ba4 Bc5 1 1 .c4 Nge7 1 2 .0-0 0-0 1 3.Nc3

ECO.

BUST

From the diagram G M N u n n credits Rellstab for first mentio ning 1 4 . . . Ne4 ! ( i n Fernschach) , after which N u n n analyzes 1 5 . Be7 Qe? 1 6.Qe1 Nc5 ! 1 7 .fe Be6 =+. IMPROVEMENT

I nstead of 1 3 .de? ! N u n n gives 1 3 .fe Qe5 1 4 . Bf6 gf 1 5 .de Be6 without evaluation . SOURCE

Ibid. , p. 1 1 1 .

C49 note 26 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bc3 B. be Ne7 9.Nh4 NeB 1 O.f4 f6 1 1 .fe

Qd8 1 4.ed cd 1 5. Nd5 Nd5 1 6.ed ECO.

+·

BUST

It's interesting that, in the annotations to Losev-V.Ivanov, Uta 1 990, the editors of Russian Chess Review rate the position afte r 1 o . . Bc5(!) as slightly favoring B lack. That gam e continued, rather unevenly, from the d iagram with 1 3 . . . Qg4 ! 1 4 .ed cd ? ! (14 ... Bd6 =+) 1 5 .Qb1 (15.Nd5 Nd5 16.Bc6 .

[16. ed or 16.cd, then 16... Nd4] be 1 7.ed cd 18.cd Bf5/Bd7 =+) Ng6 1 6.h3? (16.Nd5 Nd4 1 7.Bd1 =+) 0h5 - + , 0- 1 133 . Notes based o n comments i n Russian Chess Review. SOURCE

R C R 1 /226.

1 44

E.C.O. BUSTED!

C52 note 75 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 BcS 4.b4 Bb4 5.c3 BaS 6.d4 d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.de de 9.Ba3 B b6 1 O . N bd2 N h 6 ! 1 1 .0-0 f6 1 2.Rad1 NaS 1 3.Qb4 Nc4 14.Nc4 Qe6 =+ ECO.

Nf7 34 . Ke2 Kd6 35 .Nf1 Nd8 36.Nfe3 Ne6, and now Wh ite should have played 37 .Nf5 Kc6 3 8 . Kd3 Nf4 (38. . . Nd4 39.Nd4 cd 40.Ba3 + -) 39.Kc2 Ne6 (39 ... bc 40.Nf4 ef 4 1 .h5 and 42.Bc 1 + -) 40.Kb3 + - . Notes based o n those in the Informant. SOURCE

Informant 5 1 /307.

C52 note 77 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 BcS 4.b4 Bb4 s.c3 Bas 6.d4 d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 B.de de 9 . 0 - 0 Bb6 1 O . R d 1 Qe7 1 1 . Rd5 a6 1 2 .Nbd2 Qf6 1 3 .Nf1 Be6

BUST

P. Rodrig u ez-L.Valdes , C u ba 1 990-91 c o n t i n u e d 1 5 . R d 5 ! + - (threatening 16.Nfe5) c5 (15. . .Bd7 {15. . . Nf7 16.Rfd1]

16.Nfe5 0-0-0 1 7.Nd7 Rd7 1 8.Nb6 ab 1 9.Qa4 ++-) 1 6 .Qa4 Bd7 1 7 . Rd7 Qd7 1 8 .Nb6 Oa4 1 9 .Na4

1 4 .Bg5 Qg6

-+

ECO.

BUST

Kalsch- Ye rofeev, co r r. 1 986-88 saw 1 4 . N g3! ! Bd5 (14 . . . Nge 7 1 5.Bg5 Qg6 16. Be7) 1 5 .ed Nb8? ! (15... Nce 7 16.Bg5

Qg6 1 7.d6! Qd6 1 8.Bf7 Kf8 1 9.Ne4 Oc6 20. Ne5 Ob5 2 1 . Bh5 + -) 1 6 . Bg5 Qg6 1 7 . Re1 f6 1 8 .d6 Nh6 1 9 .dc Nd7 20 . Bh6, 1 -0 because of 20 . . . 0h6 2 1 . Ba6! and 22.Qe6 (notes based on annotations by GM Short). b6 20 . Rd1 Rd8 2 1 . Rd8 Kd8 22.c4 Nf7 23 . N c3 Nd6 2 4 . Nd2 Kd7 25 . Kf 1 Kc6 26.Ke2 a6 27 . Kd3 Rd8 28. Nd5 Rd7 29 .g3 b5 30 .f3 Nb7 3 1 .Bb2 Nd6 32 .g4 h 6 33 .h4

SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vol .3 , No .20 (Octobe r 1 5 , 1 990) , p. 1 8.

VOLUME C

1 45

C53 l i ne 1 1 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Qe7 5.d4 Bb6 6.0-0 d6 7.h3 Nf6 8.Re1 h6 9.a4 a6

de 1 5.Re5 Ng6 1 6.Re1 Qd7

=+

ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

1 O.Be3 g5 1 1 .de de 1 2 .Bb6 cb 1 3.Nh2 Be6 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

It appears that White can force Black to surrender h is strong-point on e5 with an early Queenside pawn storm. Instead of 1 O. Be3, 1 O . b4 was played in a po stal gam e which abruptly co nclud ed after 1 0 ... g5 1 1 .a5 Ba7 1 2 .b5 ab 1 3 . Bb5 Kf8 1 4 .a6 (14.Ba3!? -ed) ed 1 5 .cd Ne4? (a

blunder, but good moves were becoming scarce) 1 6.Qc2! 1 -0.

I nstead of EGO's 1 6.Re 1 , White's plan should be to play 1 6 .Re4 and 1 7.Rd4 as i n several games cited i n the sou rce reference below. It probably doesn't make much difference , however, after seeing Rufenacht-Smit, corr. 1 991 . That game continued from the d iagram with 1 4 . . . Bf5 ! 1 5 . Re3 de 1 6.Re5 Qd7 1 7 .b4 Ng6 1 8 . Re3 Rae8 1 9.Qd4 R e3 20 .fe Qe7 2 1 . Bb2? (but White is lost anyway) Qg5 22 . Kh 1 N h4 ! , 0-1 in view of 23 .Rg1 Qg1 ! 24 . Kg1 Nf3 -Sm it/Bottlik. SOURCE

N I C 26, p .77.

C54 note 63

SOURCE

Kristoi-Marcussi, corr. FM 3/4 Final.

C54 line 1 2 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3 .Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 ed 6.cd B b4 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.0-0 Bc3 9.d5 Bf6 1 O.Re1 Ne7 1 1 .Re4 d6 1 2.g4 0-0 1 3.g5 Be5 1 4.Ne5

1 46

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 ed 6.cd Bb4 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.0-0 Bc3 9.d5 Bf6 1 0.Re1 Ne7 1 1 .Re4 d6 1 2.Bg5 Bg5 1 3.Ng5 0-0 1 4.Nh7 Kh7 1 5.Qh5 Kg8 1 6.Rh4 f5 1 7.Qh7 Kf7 1 8.Rh6 Rg8 1 9.Re1 Qf8 20.Bb5 R h 8 21 . Q h8 g h 22.Qh7 Kf6 23.Re7

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Qe7 24.Qh6 Ke5 25.Qe3 Kf6 26.Qh6 Kf7 27.Qh7, w i t h a d r aw b y p e r p e t u a l ch eck - E C O . IMPROVEMENT

G raha m Wh ite , i n a letter to Inside Chess, observes t h at B l ack can fig h t o n w ith 23 . . . c 6 ! , with a l ik e l y conti n u ation b e i n g 24 .dc Qe7 25 . Q h 6 Kf7 2 6 . Q h7 K e 6 2 7 . B c4 d 5 2 8 . Bd5 Kd6 29 .0e7 Ke 7 30 .cb. True , Wh ite c an d raw after 30 . . . Bb7 3 1 . Bb 7 Rb8 a nd 32 . . . R b 2 (Th e positio n is probably

drawn, but the onus is on Black - Hall). SOURCE

I n s ide C h e s s, " L e t t e r s t o t h e E d i to r, " Vo l . 3 , N o . 9 ( M ay 1 4 , 1 9 9 0 ) , p.3.

C54 note 64 1 .e4 e5 2 . Nf3 N c 6 3 . B c4 B c 5 4 . c3 N f 6 5 . d 4 e d 6 . c d B b4 7 . N c3 N e 4 8 . 0 - 0 B c3 9 . d 5 B f6 1 O . R e 1 N e 7 1 1 . R e4 d 6 1 2 . B g 5 B g 5 1 3 . Ng 5 h 6 1 4 .Qe2 h g 1 5 . R e 1 B e 6 ! 1 6.de f 6 - + ECO.

BUST

1 7 .Re3 ! d5 (Bottlik analyzes 1 7.. 0-0 .

1 8. Qh5, or 1 8. Bd3 g6 1 9.Bg6 Ng6 20.e7 Ne7 21 .Re7 Rf7 22.Rf7 Kf7 23.Qh5 Kg7 2 4 . h 4 ! + + - ; 1 7 . . . Ng6 1 8 . Qc2 Ne 7 [18. . . Ne5? ReS] 1 9.Rh3 Rh3 20.gh f5 2 1 . Bd3 +-. Szecsi-Szarka, corr. 1 987 went 1 7...c6 1 8.Rh3 Rh3 1 9.gh g6 when Bottlik gives 20.Rd1 !? Nf5 [20... d5 2 1 .h4] 2 1 . Bd3 Nh4 22. Bg6 Ke 7 23. Qd3 Ng6 24 . Qg6 Og&>o, [23 . . . d5 24 . Bf5oo] Informant 43/397) 1 8.Rh3 Rf8 (18... Rh3 1 9.gh g6 20. 0f3 Od6 2 1 .Qf6 Of4! 22.Qh8 OfB was Nyffeler- Kovacs corr. 1989-91, and Kovacs analyzes 23. Qe5 0-0-0 24.Bd3 Qf4oo - Informant 54/31 0) 1 9 . Bd3 Od6 20.0h5 Kd8 21 . Qf7 Re8 22.0e8 Ke8 23.Rh8 Ng8 24. Rg8 Ke7 25.Ra8 Ob4 26.Kf1 Ob2 27.Bg6, 1 -0 . Szecsi- Heinrich, corr. 1 986 ( lnformant421389) . These li nes show th e attacking power White can muster with Re4-e3-h3. IMPROVEMENT

We can 't consider the Moller attack (9.d5) to be revived, however, due to the following gam e : 1 6 . . .f5 ! 1 7.Re3 g4 (now White 's plan is off -ed) 1 8 .h3 d5 1 9 . Bb3 c6 2 0 . h g Qd6 2 1 . R h3 Rh3 22.gh fg 23.Qg4 0-0-0 24. Kh1 Rf8 25.Qd4 Qf4 26.Qf4 Rf4 27.Rg1 g6 28.Kg2 Kc7 29 .Bd1

VOLUME C

1 47

Re4 30 .Bg4 Kd6 31 . Kf3 Ke5 32.h4 Nf5 33.h5 Nd4 34. Kg3 gh 35. Bh5 Ne6 36.f3 Re2 37. Rb1 Nf4 38.Bg4 d4, 0- 1 .

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nd4 Bc5 8.Nc6 Bf2 9.Kf1 Qh4!

SOURCE

Sepu lveda-Se rvat, Argentina 1 989.

CSS iine 1 3 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.Ng5 Ne5 6.Bb3 h6 7 .f4 hg 8.fe Ne4

1 0. Nd4 c6 1 1 .Nf3 Ng3 1 2 .Kf2 Ne4! ECO.

-+

IMPROVEMENT

9.Qd4 Nc5 1 O.Nc3 d6 1 1 .Be3 Nb3 1 2.ab de =+ ECO. BUST

Wh i t e fo u n d 9 . B d5 ! i n Z e z i u l ki n ­ Kalesnik, USSR 1 987, a move that see ms rather obvious in h i ndsight. The game continued with 9 . . . Bb4 (9. . . Nc5 1 0.0-0

Ne6 1 1 . Qf3 Qe l 12.Na3! g4 13. Qg4 d6 14.Nc4 +- was Naivelt-Juneew, URS 1987) 1 O .c3 de 1 1 .bc Nc3 1 2. Bf7 Kf8 1 3 .Qb3 Qe7 1 4 .0-0 +-. Critical marks by Heemsoth . SOURCE

CYB 7/241 .

EGO's clear advantage is probably a wi n n i n g advantage after 1 3 . Ke2 Qf2 1 4 . Kd3 Bf5 , etc. Yes, White is worse , but he doesn't h ave to get squashed th is badly. 1 O.Nc3 ! is good for some clock time. This move is not even mentioned in Estri n 's book on the Two Knights, but Edward Winter cites analysis by H ermann Keidanz dated 1 905. Wh ite is still rowing a leaky boat, yet he can su rely sco re a bl itz game or two with 1 O.Nc3 . SOURCE

Larry Evans, " Evans o n Chess," Chess Life, February 1 989, p.51 . ( No peekin g !)

CSS note 83 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.Ng5 Ne5 6 . B b3 h 6 7.f4 hg 8.fe Ne4 9.Qd4 d5 1 0.Bd5 Ng3 1 1 .Qa4

CSS note 67

1 48

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Bd7 1 2.Bf7 Kf7 1 3.Qb3 BeG 1 4.Qg3 ECO.

+­

BUST

I n s t e a d o f 1 1 . . . B d 7 B l ack wo u l d stand w e l l afte r 1 1 . . . Qd 7 ! , e .g . 1 2 . Bf7 Kf7 1 3 . Q b3 Kg 6 1 4 . 0g 3 Q g 4 , as i n t h e g a m e C ar l e s o n -Van Ooste ro m , corresp o n d e nce , 1 9 8 7 - 8 . T h e p o i n t i s moot, h o w e ve r, s i n ce W h ite c an p l ay m u c h m o r e s t r o n g l y i n t h e d i ag r a m m e d p o s i ti o n . E C O g i v e s 9 . Qd 4 N c5 1 0 . N c3 d 6 1 1 . B e 3 N b3 1 2 .ab d e = + (line 1 3). SOURCE

CYB 7/24 1 .

1 7 .Re4 BeG = ECO. BUST

With th e simpl e 1 7 . Bd6 ! cd 1 8 . Ra6 Wh ite obtains a clear advantage, since 1 8 . . . Rf6 1 9 . Rd 1 drops a pawn. SOURCE

I . Kuznecov-Pasternak, Rossija 1 992.

C56 note 49 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 N eG 3.Be4 NfG 4.d4 ed 5.0-0 Ne4 G.Re1 d5 7.Bd5 Qd5 8.Ne3 Qa5 9.Ne4 BeG 1 O.Neg5 0-0-0 1 1 .NeG fe 1 2.ReG BdG 1 3.Bg5 Rde8 1 4.Qe1 Qe1 1 5.Rae1 ReG 1 6.ReG Kd7 = ECO.

C56 line 3 1 .e4 e5 2 .Nf3 N eG 3.Be4 NfG 4.d4 ed 5.0-0 Ne4 G.Re1 d5 7 .Ne3 de4 8.Re4 Be7 9.Nd4 f5 1 0 .Rf4 0-0 1 1 .NeG Qd1 1 2 .Nd1 be 1 3.Re4 Bd6 1 4.Ne3 e5 1 5.Bf4 Be6 1 G.Ra4 Bd7

VOLUME C

1 49

BUST GM Andy Soltis has published extensive

analysis of this positio n , showing that White can force a winn ing endgam e . A bare outline of h i s main line runs as follows: 1 7.Re4 Rea 1 8 . Re8 Ke8 1 9 . Kf1 Kf7 20.Bd2 h6 2 1 . Ke2 Ke6 22.Kd3 Kd5

After 1 4.Rc1

23 . N d4 ! ! Nd4 2 4 . c4 Ke5 25 . f4 Kf5 26. Kd4 Bf4 27. Bf4 Kf4 28.b4 ! , and White will be able to engineer a breakth rough on the Queenside we l l before Black can organ ize a defense. SOURCE

Andrew Soltis, Winning with the Giuoco Piano and Max Lange ( Dallas : Chess Digest, 1 992) , pp.1 02- 1 05.

C56 note 64 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 ed 5.0-0 Ne4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bd5 Qd5 8.Nc3 Qa5 9.Ne4 Be6 1 O.Bd2 Bb4 1 1 .Nd4 Nd4 1 2 .c3 0-0-0 1 3 . c b Qf5 ? 1 4 . R c 1 (diagram) Kb8 1 5.Rc5 Bd5 1 6.Ng3 Qd7 1 7.Bg5 +- ECO. BUST

Black can play 1 4 . . . Bd5 1 5 .Ng3 Qg6 1 6.Rc7 (16.Bf4 Bc6=+) Kc7 1 7. Bf4 Kc8 1 8 .Qd4 b6. I nterestingly, th is position was

1 50

covered in EGO's 1 st edition with the note that Wh ite wins after 1 9 . Re7. Writing in Chess Life, however, GM Andy So ltis points out that Black h as a shot: 1 9 . Re7 Qb1 20. Nf1 Qf1 2 1 . Kf1 Bg2 22 . Kg2 Rd4 - + , e.g. 23 . Ra7 ReB 24. Rc7 Kd8 25.Rf7 R e 7 . I n stead of 1 9 . Re 7 , W h ite tri ed 1 9 . Qe5 in Sche rre r-van d e r Ste r re n , A d e l a i d e 1 98 6- 7 , b u t after 1 9 . . . Kb7 2 0 . Qc7 Ka8 2 1 . Re7 Qb1 22 . Bc1 Qa2 Black was winning. It seems that 1 3 . . . Qf5 needn't be reti red yet. SOURCE

Andy Soltis, "Chess to Enjoy," Chess Life, February 1 990, p.a.

C57 1 i ne 5 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5 .B f 7 K e 7 6 . B d 5 Rf8 7 . N f 3 N d 4 (diagram) 8.Nd4 Bd4 9.0-0 c6 1 0.c3 B b6 1 1 .Bb3 Ne4 1 2.d4 ed = ECO. BUST

I n the diagrammed position Wh ite has 8.b4! Nf3 9 .gf Bb4 1 O .c3 Bc5 1 1 .d4 ed 1 2 . Bb3 de 1 3.e5 N e4 1 4.Qd5 Bf2 1 5 . Ke2 h6 1 6.Qe4 Bb6 1 7 .Qg6 d5 1 8 . Ba3 c5 1 9 . N c3 Be6 2 0 . R ad 1 , with a wi n n i ng positio n i n C hashchikh in-Stepakin , corr. 1 990-91 . No doubt Black's play can be

E.C.O. BUSTED!

t p¥� t .4)· z

...'z

..8. .e. After 7... Nd4

improved, but he can sidestep the e ntire issue with the followin g : NOVELTY

I n stead of 6 . . . Rf8 B l ack h as tried 6 . . . Qe8 7 .c3 Rf8 8 .d4 (8. Nf3 Oh5!) ed 9 . Bc6 dc 1 0 .cd Bg4 1 1 .0d3 Rd8 1 2 .Be3 Qg6 1 3 .f3 Nd5 ! 1 4 .dc Nf4 ! 1 5 .0d8 Kd8 1 6 . Bf4 Rf4 1 7 . Nc3 Bd7 1 8 .g3 Rf8 1 9 .f4 h6 20 . N f3 Oh5 2 1 . Ne5 Bh3 22 . R d 1 Kc8 23. Rd2 g5 24 .f5 ? ! Qe8 25. Nd3 Rf5 -+ , Bi lous-Chashch ikh i n , carr. 1 990-91 . It m u st be me n tioned, however, that after 6 . . . 0e8 Anand q u ickly bu ilt up a stro n g position against Beliavsky at Lin ares i n 1 99 1 with 7.d3 d 6 8 . Bc6 be 9 . Be3 Qg6 1 0 . N f3 B e3 1 1 . fe O g 2 1 2 . Rg 1 O h 3 1 3 . Rg7 Kd8 1 4 . Rg3 O h 6 1 5 .Qe2 Ng4 1 6 . h 3 ! N f 6 1 7 . N bd 2 + - . H o m e work, any body? SOURCE

RCR 1 /231 -232.

Qc5 9.d4 ed 1 0.cd Qe7 1 1 .Kf3

)(;:��·� :g .""'

......z

+·

ECO.

BUST

In th e diagrammed position Black has 8 . . . d5! (also good is 8 ... Nd4 9.Ke4 Oh4

1 O.Ke3 Qf4 1 1 .Kd3 d5 12.Bd5 Bf5 13.Kc4 b5 14.Kc5 Oh4 15.Ne5 0-0-0 with an attack, Van De Lo-Hesseling, England 1983) 9 . Bd5 Oc5 1 O .d4 (1 0.Ke4 Bf5 1 1 . Kf5 Qd5 1 2. Nh8 Ne7 13.Kg5 Og2 worked o u t ba dly fo r Wh ite in lgnatiev-Filipov, corr. 1990-9 1) ed = + 1 1 . Ke4 Bf5 ! 1 2. Kf4 (12.Kf5 Qd5 13.Kg4 0-0 1 4 . 0f3 Oe6 1 5. Qf5 Ne5!!) Q d 5 1 3 . N h 8 0-0-0 1 4. Kg3 R h 8 1 5.cd Rf8 1 6 . Nc3 Qd6 1 7 . Bf4 Qg6 1 8 . Kf2 Be4! 1 9 . Ke3! Bg2 20.Rg1 Nb4! 21 .Qe2 Nc2 22. Kd2 Nd4!. We have been following Filipov-Ch ashchikkh in, carr. 1 990-91 , in which Wh ite now played 23.Qg2? -+, 0- 1 /33 . Best was 23 .Qd3 ! Qf6 24.Rg2 Of4 25.0e3 Nf3 26.Ke2 Oc4 27 . Kf2 Ne1 ! 2 8 . K e 1 Qf1 2 9 . Kd2 Qg 2 = + . Notes condensed from Russian Chess Review, which the reader is u rged to examine in full: th is game was a real dogfight! SOURCE

RCR 1 /231 .

C57 note 8 1 .e4 e5 2 .Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nf7 Bf2 6.Kf2 Ne4 7 .Ke3 Qe7 8.c3

C57 note 25 1 .e4 e5 2 .Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bf7 Ke7 6.Bd5 d6 7 .c3 Rf8 8.d4 ed 9.Bc6 be 1 0.0-0! +-

VOLUME C

1 51

ECO, citing Estrin-Zaitsev, USSR 1 970 . BUST

The game ECO cites continued with 1 O . . .dc 1 1 .Nc3 h 6 1 2 .Qe2 Bg4 1 3 . N f3 Nd7 1 4 . h3 Bf3 1 5 .gf g5 1 6 . Be3 N e5 1 7 . Bc5 de 1 8 . Kg2 Rf3 1 9 . R h 1 Qg8 , 0-1 . 1t's hard to see where White could improve his play ; in fact, h e may stand worse as early as move 7. N l C YB/20 mentions two games in which Black got the advantage with 7 . . . Qe8 : 1 ) Lee- R umens, British C h . 1 981 and 2) Karpov-Beliavsky, Moscow 1 983 (Informant 36/397 ) .

Kb8) Bf4 1 6.Qf5 Kd6 1 7.Qf4 Kd7, White can e ither take a perpetual check or "play for a win" by 1 8 . Kc1 ! cd 1 9 .Rd1 . Th e point is that since White is down a Rook and a piece , th e te rm "clear advantage" is m e a n i n g l e ss : W h i te m u s t d e l i v e r ch eckmate , find a perpetual , recover h is mate rial , or lose . Perhaps one of our readers will solve th is position once and for all ! SOURCE

Yakov Estrin, The Two Knight's Defence ( n .p.) , pp.20-2 1 .

C57 note 58

SOURCE

RCA 1 /232 .

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed Nd5 6.d4 Bb4 7.c3 Be7 8.Nf7 Kf7 9.Qf3 Ke6 1 0.Qe4 b5 1 1 .Bb5 Bb7 1 2.f4 +­ ECO.

C57 note 45 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed Nd5 6.Nf7 Kf7 7.Qf3 Ke6 8.Nc3 Ncb4 9.a3 Nc2 1 O. Kd 1 Na1 1 1 .Nd5

{ 1 1 . Bd5 followed by 1 2 . 0f7 t hreatening Ne4# leads to interesting complications) Kd7 1 2.d4 Bd6 1 3.de Be5 1 4.Qd3! (diagram) ECO, citing Estrin .

+­

CORRECTION

The Fried Liver attack. However, Estrin d id n 't say t h at W h i t e h as a " c l e a r advantage" in th is positio n . What h e did say is that after the fu rthe r moves 1 4 . . .c6 1 5 .Bf4 (15. Qf5 Kd6; 15.Nb6 Kc7 16.Na8

1 52

E.C.O. BUSTED!

BUST

C Y B 2/24 0 featu res the e ncounter Kalvach- Drtina, corr. 1 986, i n wh ich Black acqu itted h i mself n icely with a se ries of tactical blows. That game went 1 2 . . . g6 1 3 .fe Rf8 1 4 . Qg4 Rf5 1 5 . Bd3 Nd4 ! ! 1 6 . Rf1 (1 6.cd Nb4 1 7.Bf5 gf 1 8. Qe2 Ba6; 1 6. Bf5 gf 1 7. 0d4 Qg8) N e 3 ! ! 1 7. Be3 (1 7. 0d4 Rf1 1 8. Bf1 Nc2) Nf3 1 8.gf Qd3 1 9 .0d4 B h4 20.Qh4 Qe3, 0- 1 . And how! SOURCE

Notes based o n Andy Soltis, "C hess to Enjoy," Chess Life, Febru ary 1 990, p . 9 .

C58 note 53 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed Na5 6.Bb5 e6 7.dc be 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be6 Ne6 1 O.Qc6 Nd7 1 1 .d3 Be7

After 1 9

.••

Ra6

25. Nc4 Bc5 26. B e3 ! Qf8 27.f4 ! (27.Nd2 Bb4! 28. Qc4 Bd2!!) ef 28.d4 ! (28. Rf4 ? Of4 !, or 28.Bc5? Oc5 and 29. . . Qd5!) B b4 2 9 . Qd3 Qf7 3 0 . N e5 Od5 3 1 . N c6 fg (3 1 . . . Qc6 32.Bf4 +-) 32 .h4! g2 33.Rf2 , 1 -0

(notes based on those of C YB 's editorial staff). Doubtl ess Herr Lausch does not begrudge the postage costs i ncu rred by th i s game - a game w h ich proves once again that mo rtals are i n deed subject to ran dom visitatio n s fro m Cassia ! SOURCE CYB 2/242.

C59 note 1

1 2.Nf3 0-0 1 3.Qe4 Rb4 1 4.Qe2 e4 ! 1 5 .de Ne5 1 6. N e3 Ba6 1 7.Qd1 Qa5 1 8.Nd2 Ne4 ! -++ ECO.

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Be4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed Na5 6.Bb5 e6 7.de be 8.Be2 h6 9.Nh3 Qd4!? 1 O.d3 Qh4 11 .Bf1 Bg4 1 2.Qd2 Nd5 1 3.c4 Bb4 14.Nc3 Nc3 1 5.be Ne4!

BUST

Perhaps one g ame does not a bust m ak e , b u t h e re ' s an e x am pl e o f stre et-fighti n g n ot ofte n e ncountered: Lausch-Jaler, corr. 1 990 diverged from the diagram with 1 2 .Ne4 Rb6 ! 1 3 .0c4 Ba6 1 4 .Qa4 Bb5 1 5 .Qa7 Bc6 1 6 .0-0 f5 1 7.Ng3 0-0 1 8 . Nc3 Qc8 1 9 .Q a5 ! ! Ra6 ( d i ag ra m ) 2 0 . N d 5 ! B d 6 ! 2 1 . N f5 ! ! Rf5 2 2 . 0c3 Q a8 23 . N e3 Rg5 24.g3 Kh8

VOLUME C

1 53

1 6.dc Rd8 1 7 .cb Rd2 1 8.Bd2 Bh3 ECO.

C60

-+ +

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 as

BUST

Mi nev points out that the simple 1 6.Qc2 ! is u n cle ar. The refo r e , h e co n s i d e rs 1 4 . . . Nc4! more acc u rate , and though White still has 1 5 .0c2 Black can retreat the hanging Knight with the better game. SOURCE

Nikolay M i nev, "Inside Track , " Inside Chess, Vo1.1 , No.4 ( M arch 1 , 1 988), p .24.

C59 note 9 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dc be 8.Be2 h6 9 . Nh3 Bc5 1 0 .0-0 0-0 1 1 .d3 N b 7 1 2.Kh1 g5

NOVELTY

3 . . . a5! ? is not a joke , as Black is a Correspondence G M who has played this move at least twice . Kuczynski-Popov, corr. 1 9?? continu ed 4 .0-0 N a7 5 . Be2

1 3.c3 Bb6 1 4.Be3 Nd5 1 5 .Bb6 Qb6 1 6.Qd2 Bh3 1 7.gh Nf4 -+ ECO. BUST

Instead of 1 3 .c3(?) White should play 1 3 . N g 1 o r even 1 3 . N c3 with a so lid defensive position -M i nev.

(5.Bc4 b5 [5. . . d6 6.a4 Be6] 6.Ne5?! [6.Bf7 Kf7 7.Ne5 Ke7 8. 0f3 Qe8 9.d4 d6 1 0. Bg5 Nf6 1 1 .Nd3 Bb7!] be 7.Nf7 Kf7 8.Qh5 g6 9. 0d5 Kg7 1 0. 0a8 Nc6 1 1 .b3 {1 1 .Na3 Ba3 12.ba c3!] Be7 12.bc Bf6 13.c3 Nge7 14.Ba3 [14.f4 d6; 14.d4 Nd4] Qg8) d6 6.d4 Bg4 ?.de Bf3 8 . Bf3 de 9. Nd2 Nf6 1 0 .c3 Bc5 1 1 .Qb3 b6 1 2 . Rd 1 0-0 1 3 .Nc4 Qe8 1 4 . Bg5 a4 1 5.Qc2 Qe6 1 6.Nd2 Ng4, and now 1 7. Bh4 would leave the position lookin g level, but White played 1 7. Bg4? ! Qg4 1 8 . N f3 f5 and lost in 43 moves (analysis by Popov). SOURCE

Fernschach International, Nove m be r 1 992, p.599.

SOURCE

N ikolay M i n ev, " I n side Track, " Inside Chess, Vol.1 , No.2 (January 27, 1 988), p.1 4.

1 54

C60 note 1 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Qe7 4.0-0 Nd8 5 .c3 c6 6.Ba4 d6 7 .h3

E.C.O. BUSTED!

7.Nd5 QcS 8. Be3 Qc4 9.b3 Bb4 1 0.c3 Bc3 1 1 . Nd2 Qe4 (1 1 . . . Qc6 12.Rc1 b4

might be worth a try, intending to give up the Queen after 13.Nb4 Bb4 14.Rc6 de -ed) 1 2 . Nc3 Qg2 1 3 .Qf3 + - . Perhaps, but t h e r e ' s c e r ta i n l y ro o m fo r p r i vate enterprise in th is line! SOURCE

Alexi Sueti n , The Complete Spanish ( New York: Hen ry Holt and Co ., 1 99 1 ) , p.53.

gS 8.d4 g4 9.hg Bg4 1 O.Qd3

C60 note 24 +-

ECO. 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7 4. Nc3 g6 S .d4 ed 6.Nd 5 !

BUST

A terrible example. Black, of course, doesn 't h ave to g as h h i mself on the K i n gs ide , b u t s h o u ld p l ay th e m o re restrained 7 ... g6 as in Kristoffei-Doliner, 1 4th World Corr. C h . 3/4 Final. In th at game Black obtained equality after 7 ...g6 8.d4 Bg7 9.b4 Nf6 1 O .Nbd2 0-0 1 1 .Re1 N e6 1 2.b5 Qc7 1 3.bc be 1 4 . Bb3 N f4 1 5 .Nc4 Be6 1 6 . Bf4 ef 1 7. Nd6 Qd6 1 8 .e5 Bb3 1 9 . a b Q c 7 2 0 . e f Bf6 , 1 /2- 1 /2 i n 5 7 ( Fernschach International, N o v e m b e r 1 992, p.637a) . IMPROVEMENT

I f White i s out to test th e soundness of 3 ...Qe7, however, he would do better to consider the fo llowing analysis fro m Shakhmaty v SSSR : 1 . e4 eS 2 . Nf3 Nc6 3 . Bb5 Qe7 4 . Nc3 Nd8 5 .d4 ! c 6 6 . d e c b

NdS 7.ed Qe7 8.Kf1 NeS 9.Qd4 f6 1 0.Bf4 Bg7 1 1 .Re1 +- ECO. BUST

Well , th at's the way it was in 1 91 1 , the y e a r E C O ' s e x a m p l e was p l ay e d . Meanwhile, fortunately, Black has learned how to defend h imself: from the diagram best play seems to be 6 . . . Bg7 7.Bg5! h 6 8 . Bf6 Bf6 (8. . . Kf81?) 9.Nf6 Kf8 . Now White can try eith e r 1 ) 1 0 .0-0 d6 1 1 . Nd4

(1 1 .Nd5 Bg4 12.Bc6 [12.Ne7 Ke7! =] Nc6 1 3. h3 Bf3 1 4. Qf3 Ne5!? -) Kg? 1 2. Nd5 (White might look at 12.Nc6!? Nc6 13.Nd5 f6! ? and 1 4. . . Ne7) NdS 1 3 .ed (1 3.Nc6 be 1 4 . 8c6 Nb6 1 5. Ba8 NaB 16. Qd4 Qf6 1 7. Qa7 BefPo) Nd4 1 4.Qd4 Qf6 = , o r 2) 1 0. Nd4 !? Nf5 ! 1 1 .ef Qf6 1 2 .Bc6 Qe5 !? VOLUME C

1 55

1 3 .Ne2 be 1 4 .0-0 about equal , or 1 4 .fg Ba6oo. Analysis by A.Fil ipenko . SOURCE

N I C 2 6 , p . 1 6 9 . See also Informant 55/322 fo r good analysis of B l ack's possibilities in this line.

C61 note 21 1 .e4 eS 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.BbS Nd4 4.Nd4 ed S.0-0 c6 6.Bc4 dS 7 .ed cd 8.Re1 Be7 9.8bS Kf8!? c6 8.Nc3 d6 9.d4 e4 1 0.Ngs BfS 1 1 .Nge4 +- ECO. NOVELTY

Pen so n-Gudjev, 8th Corr. Oly mpiad, 1 /2 Final saw Black try 7 . . . e4!? 8.Re1 Be7 9 . N g5 c6 1 0. Nc3 d5 1 1 .Ne6 ( 1 1 . d3 is the only real test of this idea) Be6 1 2 .fe 0-0 1 3 .d3 Bc5, and White now played 1 4 .d4 (=+, 0- 1127) i n view of 1 4 .de Bf2 1 5. Kf2 Ng4 1 6. Ke2 Rf2 --Gudjev. SOURCE

G iven by E C O w i t h o u t co m m e n t o r evaluation . CORRECTION

9 . . . Kf8(!} was suggested to avoid EGO's 9 . . . Bd7 1 O.Qg4 + - . The only example we have of play after 9 ... Kf8 turned out quite well for Black: Peelen-Kiip, corr. 1 987 went 1 O.c3 Qb6 1 1 .0a4 a6 1 2. Bd3 Be6 1 3.Na3 Bc5 1 4.b4 Bd6 1 5. Bb2 Nf6 1 6.h3 Nh5 ! -+.

" Po rtrait: M laden Gudjev," Fernschach International, Jan u ary 1 992 , pp.9-1 0 .

C63 note 1 08 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.BbS fS 4.Nc3 fe S.Ne4 dS 6.Ng3 e4 7.Nd4

SOURCE

Rotariu and Cimmino, The Bird Variation in the Ruy Lopez ( Bo logna: 8 1 Editrice, 1 992} , p.49.

C63 note 73 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.BbS fS 4.Nc3 Nd4 S.ef Nf6 6.0-0 NbS 7 .NbS

1 56

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Qd6 8.d3 ed 9.Qd3 Bd7 1 0.0-0 0-0-0 1 1 .Bc6 Bc6 1 2.Bg5 Nf6 1 3.Ngf5 +- ECO. BUST

7 . . . Qf6! 8 .Qh5 Ke7 9.Ndf5 (9.Nc6 be

1 0. Ba4 g6 1 1 . Qe2 h5 12. f3 h4 13.Nf1 h3 14.fe hg 15. Qg2oo, but not 1 5. ed Qe6!!) Ke6 1 O .Qe8 Nce7oo. SOURCE

H e r m a n n H e e m s o t h , " E u ro p e a n Championships," Femschach International, November 1 991 , p.589.

sample gam e not included i n Mr. Leach's co l l e ct i o n : P e tte rso n - Fo r s l u n d , carr. 1 987-88 went 5 .Qa4 (or 5.Ne5 Qg5 6.d4

Qg2 7. Qf3! Qf3 8.Nf3 de 9.Ng5 [9.Ne5 Bd6 1 0.Nc6 Bd7 1 1 .Na7 Ra7 12.Bd7 Kd7oo -ed] Be 7 1 0. Bc6 be 1 1 . Ne4oo, analyzed in Fernschach, March 1988) Nge7 6.Ne5 0-0 7 .Bc6 Nc6 8.Nc6 Qg5! 9.g3 be 1 O.Qd1 Bf2 ! 1 1 . Kf2 Bg4 1 2 .Qe1 f5 1 3 .d4 fe 1 4 .Bf4 Rf4 1 5 .gf Rf8 1 6.Kg1 Qf4 1 7. Nd2 Bh3, 0-1 . SOURCE

H ermann H e e m soth , " M ode r n Correspondence Min iatures," Fernschach International, December 1 991 , pp.662-663.

C64 l i ne 6 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 BcS 4.c3, and ECO covers 4 ... Qe7, 4 ... Qf6, 4 ... Nge7, 4 ... Nf6, and 4 ...f5. NOVELTY

4 . . . d5 !?

T h i s s h arp t h r u s t re m i n d s o n e of Ponzian i 's opening, and lovers of violence should feel at home here. ECO's omission of 4 . . .d5 is odd, since the move is rather wel l know n . Colin Leach (Ruy Lopez:

Classical Defense, 2nd ed. [London: Caissa Publishing, 1 988], pp. 94 -99) presents some fifteen games fro m the diagram , with Black scoring over 50% ( ! ) . There i s n o real "mai n l ine", so here's a

C64 line 1 1 1 .e4 eS 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 BCS 4.c3 fS s.ef e4 6.d4 ef 7.dc Qe7 8.Be3 fg 9.Rg1 Nf6 1 0.Qf3 0-0 1 1 .Nd2 d6 1 2.0-0-0 NeS 1 3 .Qg2 BfS 1 4.Nc4?

Bd3 -+ ECO, citing Baer- R . Snyder, carr.

1 978.

CORRECTION

M r. S nyder i nforms us that i nstead of 1 4 . . . Bd3, the actual move played was 1 4 . . . N d 3 - + . O n l y a co i n c i d e n t a l co nversation with the player i n volved brought th is example to our attention,

VOLUME C

1 57

wh ich leaves one wondering j ust how many such errors are buried in the pages of ECO.

C64 1ine 1 5 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 f5 5.d4 fe 6.Bc6 de 7 .Ne5 Bd6 8.Qh5 g6 9.Qe2 Qh4 1 O.Nd2 Bf5 �··�

6 2! %.

. . .

z

Be7 1 5 .Qh3 Bh3 1 6 .Nf2 Be6 1 7.e4 h5 1 8. Nd2 Nh6 1 9.Nf3 + = ECO. BUST

1 1 . h3 Be5 1 2 .de 0 - 0 - 0 1 3.g4 e3 1 4 . Q e3 Be6 1 5 . Q a 7 B g 4 , w i t h compensation -ECO.

The CYB editors cite Thielen-Langheld, corr. 1 990 in which Black played 1 4 ... Qt1 ! in the d iagrammed position , "with a clear advantage". Presumably after 1 5. Af1 Be? Black will be able to round up the advanced e-pawn, when his Bishop pair, development, and better structure will tell in his favor. SOURCE

C Y B 6/224

CORRECTION

The typo 1 3 . . . e5 is actually give n , but 1 3 . . .e3 is obviously intended. NOVELTY

EGO's line is rather m essy, and if White needs a calmer position h e can contin u e from the diagram w ith 1 1 .g4 Be5 1 2.gf Bf6 1 3.fg hg 1 4.Qe4 Kf7 1 5 .Qh4 Rh4 , as i n Davi e s -S pee l m a n , H as ti n gs 1 9 8 7 - 8 . White still has h is extra pawn, and h e can plan to consolidate with 1 6. Nf3, 1 7. Be3/f4 and 1 8 .0-0-0 .

C64 note 25 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.0-0 Nd4 5.Nd4 Bd4 6.c3 Bb6 7.d4 e6 8.Ba4 d6 9.Na3 Nf6 1 0.Bg5 h6 1 1 .Bf6 Qf6 1 2.d5 Bd7 1 3. Nc4 Bc7 1 4.dc!? be 1 5.Qd3 +=

C64 line 1 6 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 f5 5.d4 fe 6.Bc6 de 7 .Nfd2 Bd6 8.de e3 9.fe Be5 1 o .Qh5 g6 1 1 .Qf3 Oh4 1 2.g3 Qh3 1 3.Ne4 Bg4 1 4.Qf1

1 58

E.C.O. BUSTED!

CORRECTION

After the n atural 1 5 . . . 0-0 (1 5... g5!? in vie w o f wh a t follows -ed) Petro n ic analyzes 1 6 .f4 ! ! ef 1 7 .e5 Bf5 (1 7... Qf5 1 8. Qf5 Bf5 1 9. ed ++-) 1 8 . 0d6 ! ! Bd6

(18. . . Qd6 1 9.ed Bb6 20. Nb6 ab 2 1 . Bc6 ++-) 1 9 .ef Bc5 2 0 . Kh 1 g5 (20. . . 8d3 2 1 . fg! Kg7 22. Rf4 ++-) 2 1 . N e5! ++-.

m ay b e 1 1 . . . N d2 as i n Short- G ulko, Linares 1 989. However, White kept h is wits about h i m , worked hard, and 1 /2-1 /2 in 54. SOURCE

Svetozar Gligoric, "Inside Track," Inside Chess, Vo l.2, No. 1 (September 1 1 , 1 989), p. 1 9 .

SOURCE

Informant 56/354 .

C65 note 31 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Ne5 Ne5 6.d4 a6 7 .Be2

C64 note 41 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 Bb6 6.Ne5 Ne5 7.de Ne4 8.Qg4 Bf2 9.Ke2 Qh4 1 O.Qg7 Rf8

Ne4 8.dc Nc5 9.b4 Ne6 1 O.Bb2 +- ECO.

BUST 1 1 .Bh6 Bc5 1 2. Rf1 c6 1 3.Rf4 Qh5 1 4.Ke1 cb 1 5.Re4 b6 -+ ECO. BUST

I n t h e g a m e B e l i av s k y - l v a n c h u k , Linares 1 9 89 Wh ite played the m uc h stronger 1 1 .Nd2 ! , and afte r 1 1 . . . Bc5 ! ? 1 2 . Nf3 Qf2 1 3 . Kd 1 Be? Gligoric analyzes 1 4 . Bd3 d5 (14 ... Nc5 1 5. Rf1 !) 1 5 .ed N d6 1 6 .Re1 Be6 (16... Bf5 1 7.Re7! Ke 7 1 8.Bf5 Nf5 Oe5) 1 7.Re2! Qc5 1 8 .Bg5 ! . Or (after 14.Bd3 dq 1 5. ed) 1 5 . . . Bf6l? 1 6.Qh6! Qg2 1 7 . Re 1 ! Qf3 1 8 . Kc2 Bf5 1 9 .Qf6 Qf2 20 . Kb1 ! cd 21 .Bb5 ! . After White's 1 1 .Nd2 i n the diagrammed position , Black's best

Black should play 7 . . . Ba7 !, when 8 .de Ne4 9. Bd3 Qh4 1 O.Qf3 d5 1 1 .ed Nd6 1 2 .Re1 Be6 1 3 .g3 Qh3 1 4 .Nc3 0-0-0 1 5. Bf4, 1 /2-1 /2 was Chandler-Spassky, Lo ndon 1 984. A premature d raw, perhaps, but Black was clearly h aving no problems . NOVELTY

I nstead of 7 .Be2 White h as been trying 7. Ba4, but it seems good for no more than equality - if h e's carefu l. Check out the following analysis by Robert Snow: 7 . Ba4 b5 !? 8.de (8.Bb3 is safer, and possibly += according to Snow) Ne4!? 9.0d5? (9.Bb3

Bb7 1 0. Bd5 QcB =, but not 9. Qg4 ?! Bb7!

VOLUME C

1 59

1 0. Qg7 [1 0. Bb3 Qe 7 1 1 . Qg7 0-0-0] Oh4!! 1 1 .g3 [1 1 . Qh8 Ke7 -++] Ng3 12. Qh8 [12. 0g3?? Oe4] Ke7 13.0f6 Ke8 with a repetition -GM J. Benjamin) Oh4 ! 1 O .g3 (1 0.0a8 ?? Bf2 1 1 . Kh 1 Ng3#; 1 0. Be3 c6) Ng3 1 1 .hg ( 1 1 . 0a8 Nft 12. 0g2 [12. 0c8 Ke7 13. 0h8 Qf2] Bb7! 13. Qf1 Qg4, or 1 1 . Qc5 Ne2 1 2. Kh 1 [ 1 2. Kg2 Og4, followed by 13... 0f3#} Oh3 13.Nd2 Oft !!) Qg3 1 2. Kh 1 Qh3 1 3. Kg1 Rb8 1 4 . Qc5 Rb6. Now Benj a m i n finishes off with 1 5. Bf4 Rg6 1 6. Bg3 Rg3 1 7.fg Qg3 1 8 . Kh 1 Bb7 -++ , or 1 5.e6 (15.Bg5 Qg4 1 6.Kh2 Og5 and 1 7... Rh6) Re6 1 6. Bg5 Bb7 1 7.f3 Qg3 1 8.Kh1 Re2 - + + . SOURCE

1 5 . Re5 Bd7 ! 1 6.Nf1 (16.Rd5? Bc6 -++) Rfe8 1 7. Ne3 c6 1 8 .a3 Qd6 (or 18 .. . f6!?

1 9. Re8 ReB 20. Qb 1 Re4!, planning 21 . . . f5 and22.. . f4) 1 9.Qh5 R e5 20.de Qe7 2 1 . Nf5? (21 . f4! and 22. Re 1 was White 's last chance) Qg5! 22.Qg5 hg 23 . Nd6 Kf8 24 .c4 (24.Nb 7 ReB 25.Re 1 f6 - +) Ke7 25 . R e 1 f6! - + , 0- 1 /42. Notes based on an notations by Bel iavsky. IMPROVEMENT

Acc o rd i n g to B e l i avsky W h ite can maintain a slight advantage with 1 3 .N e3 (rather than EGO's 13.Nb6) Qe6 1 4 .Nb3 , plann ing Re1 , f4 , and Qf3 . SOURCE

Joel B e n j am i n , " T h eo re t i c al l y Speaki n g , " Chess Life, M a y 1 9 9 3 , pp.25-26.

Informant 56/357 .

C67 note 1 6 C65 note 81 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bcs 5.c3 0-0 6.d4 Bb6 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bf6 Qf6 9.Bc6 Qc6 1 0. N e5 Qe4 1 1 . Nd2 Qf5 1 2 .Nec4 d5 1 3.Nb6 ab 1 4.Re1

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Ne4 5.d4 ed 6.Re1 d5 7 .Qd4

Qd7 8.Bc6 Qc6 9.c4

+-

ECO.

IMPROVEMENT Be6

=

ECO.

BUST

B l ack g a i n e d t h e a d v a n t a g e i n Rosental is- Beliavsky, Groningen 1 992 with 1 4 . . . Qg6 ! , w h e n t h e re fo llowed

1 60

Okay, it's time we got rid of this old Reube n Fine quote that crops up in every b o o k o n t h e R u y , a n d a n o ff- h a n d suggestion by GM Joel Benjam in provides the opportunity to do so. After all , if Black h as to stand worse , let h i m stand worse

E.C.O. BUSTED!

while making good moves ! I n Chess Life Benjam in gives from the diag ram 7 . . . Be6 8 .c4 Bc5 9 . Qg7 Bf2 1 O . Kf1 Rf8

Aher 6 ... f6

A subsequent reader's question brought forth more analysis, and suddenly a new variatio n was born wh ich , if n ot fu l ly satisfactory, i s far s u pe rior to EGO's recomendation . Benjam i n 's notes are too exte n sive to reproduce h e re , b u t h e co nsiders 1 1 .cd , 1 1 . Bh 6, and 1 1 .Re2 without finding a solution to th e problems Black presents. The line is certainly worth testi ng. SOURCE

Joel Benjam i n , "Th e o re t i c a l l y Spe aking," Chess Life, D ecember 1 990, p.39 ; March 1 99 1 , p. 1 6. Please do locate these two articles - the variations are qu ite i nteresting.

1 3 . Re6 d5 or e ven 1 3. . . Qb6!? -ed.) 1 O . Re1 Kf7, and in view of h is extra pawn, B l ac k ' s p o s i t i o n is " s afe e n o u g h . " Moreover, if i n the diagram White tries ?.de Nb5 B.ef gf 9 . Re 1 (9. Qd5!?) Kf7, again Black is holding h is own according to Bisguier. IMPROVEMENT

It m ay tu rn out, however, that 6 . . .f6 is u ntenable afte r all, though not fo r the reason given by ECO. B isgu ier suggests as Wh ite 's best : 7 . N e5 Ne5 B .de fg

(8 . . . Nb5 [8. . . Nf7!? -ed] 9.ef gf 1 0. 0h5 "leads to a really strong attack") 9 .ed B d 6 1 0 . R e 1 K f 8 1 1 . N c 3 , w i th co m pensation . Like Bisguier said, "All t h e s e v a r i at i o n s n e e d s e r i o u s exam inatio n . " SOURCE

N M Eric Sch iller, "M iles Takes First i n C hicago," Chess Life, July 1 990, p.36.

C67 note 30 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Ne4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bg5 f6 (diagram) 7.Be6 de B.de +· ECO, citing Sueti n . BUST

G M Arth u r B isguier co ntinues Suetin's line with B . . . fg 9 . e d B d 6 (9 . . . cd 1 0. Re 1

Be 7 1 1 .Ng5 [1 1 . Oe2 Kf7] 0-0 12.Ne6 Be6

C67 note 1 03 1 .e 4 e5 2 .Nf3 Ne6 3 .Bb5 Nf6 4 .0-0 Ne4 5.d4 Be7 6 . Qe2 Nd6 7 .Be6 be B . d e N b 7 9 . R e 1 0 - 0 1 0 . N e3 N e5 1 1 . B e3 N e 6 1 2 . Ra d 1 d5 1 3.ed ed 1 4 .Nd4 Bd7 1 5 .Nf5 d5 1 6. Ne7 Qe7 1 7 . Na4 + = ECO.

VOLUME C

1 61

1 5 .Nf4 Qf3 1 6.gf 0-0 1 7.d3 Ne6, with co m pensation -ECO.

CORRECTION

In an excerpt from The Chess Terrorist's Handbook p u b l i s h e d i n Chess Life, G rand m as te r L e o n i d S h a m k o v i c h analyzes two paths to equal ity for Black: 1 ) 1 7 . . . Qh4 1 8 .b3 d4 1 9 . Bd2 (1 9.g3 Qf6) c5 20.Nb2 Bc6, or 1 8 .Nc5 Nc5 1 9 . Bc5 Rfe8, and 2) 1 7 . . . Rfe8 1 8.b3 (both 18.Bc5

Qh4 1 9.Qa6 Nf4 threatening 20. . . Ng2, and 1 8.c4 d4 1 9.Bc 1 [19. Bd4 Qb4] c5 20. Qc2 Bc6 favor Black) Qf6 1 9 . B c1 {19. Qd2 d4 20. f3 c5 -+) c5 20. Nb2 Bc6. As Shamkovich po i nts out, Kortc h n o i was wi lling to play t h e diag ram m ed position as Black i n game two of h i s Merano match with Karpov. That fact co upled with S hamkovich's analytical work suggests a fairer evaluation of this line might be "= /oo". SOURCE

IMPROVEMENT

White does much better to follow analysis by 1imman which, from the diagram , goes 1 5.0d5 Nd5 1 6.Nc3 Nc3 1 7.dc! + = . SOURCE

N I C 2 7 , p.84. I ncidentally, readers may wish to look at Tim man-Short, San Lorenzo 1 993. I n that game White played 1 4.0b7 !? instead of ECO's 1 4. Bb2, leading to a sharp and unclear battle.

C68 note 74 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Be6 d e 5.0-0 Qd6 6.Na3 Be6 7 .Ng5 Bd7 8.Nc4

Sh amkovich and Hodges , " A C h ess Te rrorist's G u ide to the R u y Lopez , " Chess Life, October 1 992, p.1 8.

C68 note 43 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.8b5 a6 4.Be6 de 5.0-0 Ne7 6.Ne5 Qd4 7 .Qh5 g6 8.Qg5 Bg7 9.Nd3 f5 1 O.e5 c5 1 1 .b3 h6 1 2.Qg3 f4 1 3.Qf3 Bf5 1 4.Bb2 Qd5

1 62

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Qe7 9.d4

+-

ECO.

recklessly with 8 . . . 0-0-0 9 .d5 f5 ! 1 O .h3 h5! 1 1 .ef e4 1 2 .cb cd, and the position is "a com plete m ess" -GM Rhode.

BUST

Black equalizes with 8 . . . Qg6 ! 9.d3 f6 according to GM R hode. IMPROVEMENT

Instead of 7.Ng5 Wh ite h as a stronger plan beg i n n i ng with 7.Qe2 ! , prepari ng both Nc4 and Rd1 with d4 to follow as in Timman-Short, E l Esco rial 1 993. Afte r 7.Qe2! R h ode reco m m e nds 7 . . . 0-0-0 8.Nc4 Bc4 9.Qc4 f6 with rough equal ity.

SOURCE

Ibid . , p.26.

C69 note 39 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Be6 de 5.0-0 f6 6.d4 Bg4 7 .c3 ed 8.ed Bf3 9.Qf3 Qd4 1 0.Rd1

SOURCE

M ichael R hode, "Game of th e Month ," Chess Life, April 1 993, p.26.

C68 note 75 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Ne6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Be6 de 5.0-0 Qd6 6.Na3 b5 7.e4 Bg4

Qe4 1 1 .Bf4 Qf7 1 2.Qg3

+-

ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

8.h3 Bf3 9.Qf3 Nf6 1 O.d3!

=

ECO.

NOVELTY

If White is u nwilling to settle for ECO's final position , he can plunge the game i nto obscurity with 8.d4!?, as in a battle fought between Fedorowicz and R hode (date and place unknown), wh ich conti nued

A chess computer belonging to Rish i Agrawal plays 1 o . . . Qe5( !). White may be able to prove an advantage, but the m icroch ip's move is better than ECO's line. Here are a couple of possibilities: 1 ) Agrawal gives 1 1 . Bf4 !? Ob2 1 2 .Nc3 Bb4 , when G M Wo lff analyzes 1 3 .Qg4 Ne7 1 4 . Na4 Qa3 1 5 .Qg7 Rg8 1 6.Qh7 Oa4 1 7 .e5!?, saying that o nly testing could reveal who is better. 2) Wolff also gives 1 1 . Qb3 Bd6 1 2 .Qb7 Oh2 1 3 . Kf1 Oh 1 1 4 . Ke2 Q h 5 1 5 . Ke 1 Rd8 1 6.Qc6 Kf8 1 7 .Qa6 Qh2 1 8.Qf1 oo .

SOURCE

Patrick Wolff, "Theoretically Speaking," Chess Life, February 1 993 , pp.22-23.

VOLUME C

1 63

C70 line 8 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Nb3 8 .ab f6 9. Nc3 Bb7 1 0.Nh4 Qd7 1 1 .f4 0-0-0 1 2.Nf3

CORRECTION

Ne7 1 3.d5 c6 1 4.Qd3 Kb8

+·

ECO.

BUST

Although it looks paradoxical to give up his strongpoint, Black should play 1 2 . . . ed ! as i n Kamsky-Gausel , Manila 1 992. After 1 3 .Qd4 (13.Nd4 ?! cS 14.Nf5 g6 15.Ne3

fS! 16.Ncd5 KbB 1 7.c4 b4 18.Qd3 Nh6 1 9.e5 Bg7 =+) f5 ! is already u nclear acc o rd i n g to K a m s k y . T h e g a m e continued 1 4 . Be3 (14.Qd3?! b4 15.Nd5 fe 16. Qe4 Nf6! 1 7.Nf6 Be4 1 8. Nd7 Kd7 19.c3 RbB =+) fe 1 5. Ne4 Ne7 1 6.Bf2 c5 !? ( 1 6. . . Nf5 1 7. Qd3 Be? =) 1 7.Qd3 Nd5 1 8 .Qd2 Qf5oo. Notes based on com ments by Kamsky.

The only e xample of th is line be ing played in practice seems to have been the stem game cited by EGO, which resulted i n a n u nclear position afte r 1 2 . . . Bf6 1 3 . B e3 Bc3 1 4 .bc B b 7 1 5 . Bd4 Qe7 1 6 . R ae 1 0-0-0 1 7.c4 c5 1 8.cb cd 1 9 .ba B a 6 2 0 . Q a5 B b 7oo. A n e x t r e m e l y double- edged position has ari se n , i n w h i ch t h e better play e r will tri u m ph . Doubtless improvements can be found fo r both sides. SOURCE

van den Besch- R ubinstei n , 1 930.

C74 1 ine 1 2 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5 6.ef Bf5 7.0-0 Bd3 8.Re1 Be7 9.Re3 e4 1 O.Ne1 Bg5 1 1 .Rh3

SOURCE

Informant 55/332.

C72 note 1 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.0-0 Nge7 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 Nd4 8.Nd4 ed 9.c3 de 1 0.Qh5 Ng6 1 1 .Nc3 Be7 1 2 .f4 + · ECO.

1 64

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Nf6 1 2.Nd3 ed 1 3.Rd3 0-0 1 4.Rh3 Qe7 1 5 . N a 3 R a e 8 1 6 . N c 2 N e 4 , with compensation ECO -

.

IMPROVEMENT

Black can play th is l in e j ust as i n EGO's example , but with the i mportant difference of having h is Knight placed o n h6, e.g. 1 1 . . . Nh6! 1 2 .Nd3 ed 1 3 . Rd3 (Kazansev­

Arzumanjan, carr. 1 962-3 went 13.0!3 Oe7 1 4. Bc6 be 1 5. 0d3 0-0 16.Na3 Rf2!! 1 7. Kf2 Bh4 1 8.g3 Rf8 1 9. Kg2 Oe 1 ! 20.Rh4 Rf2 2 1 . Kh3 Oh 1 22.Rh6 Rh2 23.Kg4 Rh6 24. 0f5 0h3, 0- 1) 0-0 1 4. Rh3 Qe7 1 5 .Na3 Rae8 1 6.Nc2 Qe2 1 7 .Qf1 Bd2 = + . One can readily see the value of Black keeping his f-file unobstructed.

C apa played 1 3. Bg5, but Wh ite looks to get a much more dangerous initiative with 1 3 . B h 6 ! from the d i ag ram . Kark l ins­ Nance, C h icago 1 989 continued 1 3 ... d5

(13. . .gh 14.Rfe 1 Bel 15. 0!6 Rf8 16.0g7 -Schiller) 1 4 . R fe 1 B e 4 1 5 . R ad1 Be? 1 6 . Re4 de 1 7 . Rd8 when , i n stead of 1 7 . . . Bf8 ? , Sch i l l e r analyzes 1 7 . . . Rd8 1 8 .Qg3 gh 1 9 .Qc7oo. It is difficult to see how Black's scattered forces can organize an effective resistance, however. SOURCE

E r ic Sch i l l er, " B rooks Mows Down M idwest M asters," Chess Life, August 1 989, p . 1 6.

C74 note 45

SOURCE

S.T. Arz u m anj an , "Span ish : Modern Steinitz D efence , " CYB 7, p.3.

C74 note 1 2

1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5 6.ef Bf5 7.0-0 Bd3 8.Re1 e4 9.0b3 Rb8 1 O.c4 Kf7 1 1 .c5 d5 1 2.Bc6 be 1 3.Ne5 Ke6

1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 N c6 3.Bb5 as 4.Ba4 d6 s.c3 f5 6.ef Bf5 7 .d4 e4 8.d5 ef 9.dc b5 1 0.0f3 B b1 1 1 .Bb3 Bg6 1 2.0-0 Nf6

1 4.Qc3 d4 1 5 .0d3 ed 1 6.Nc6 Kd5 1 7 .Nd8 Rd8 -+ ECO. BUST

with compensation - E C O . T h i s g a m e fragment i s from Capablanca- Ste in er, New York 1 93 1 , 1 /2 - 1 /2 i n 20. IMPROVEMENT

I n stead of 1 4 . Qc3 White wins with 1 4.Nc6! Rb3 1 5.Nd8 Kd? 1 6.ab Kd8. SOURCE

S.T. Arz u m anjan , "Span i s h : Modern Ste i nitz Defe nce ," CYB 7, p.2.

VOLUME C

1 65

SOURCE

C78 note 1 1 0

CYB 2/248 .

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7 .Re1 Bc5 S.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6 1 O.Bg5 h6 1 1 .Bh4 0-0 1 2.a4 ed 1 3.ab ab 1 4. RaS BaS 1 5 .cd ReS 1 6. Nc3 g5!

C78 note 1 1 2 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7 .Re1 Bc5 S.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6 1 O.Bg5 h6 1 1 . Bh4 0-0 1 2.Qd3 Na5? 1 3.Bc2 c5 1 4.de de 1 5.Ne5 + ­ ECO.

1 7 .Bg3 Na5 1 S.e5 Nb3 1 9.Qb3 Bf3 20.gf Bd4 21 .e6 Re6 22.Re6 fe 23.Nb5 Bb6 24.Qe6 Kg7 25 .f4 QeS, 1 /2-1 /2 ECO, citing Kupper-l skov, Zurich 1 976. BUST BUST

I n the game Penrose-Vukcevic, 9th Carr. 0 1 . 1 9 83-8 5 Wh ite d e m o n strated an amazing sequence from the diagramm ed position : 1 7.Qd2 ! ! Na5 ( 1 7. . .gh ? 1 8. Qh6

Nh7 [18... Nd4 1 9.Bf7! Kf7 20.Ng5 ++-] 19.Bf7 Kf7 20.Qh7 Kf8 21 .Nd5) 1 8. Bc2 b4 1 9 . Ng5! be 20. Qf4 Bd4 2 1 . N h 7 ! ! Be5 (21 ... Kh7 22.e5 Kg8 23.Bf6 Be5 24. Qg4 ++-, or 2 1 ... Nh7 22.Bd8 Rd8 23.e5! Be5 24.Bh 7 Kh 7 25. Qt7 Kh8 26.Re5 de 26.Qf6 ++-) 22.Qh6 Re6 23 . Nf6 Rf6 (23 ... Bf6? 24.e5!! Bh4 25. Bh7 KhB 26. Bg6 Kg8 27. Qh7 Kf8 28. Qf7#) 24. Bf6 Bf6 (24. . . Qf6 25. Qf6 Bf6 26.Ra 1 ++-) 25. Re3 Be5 26.Rh3 Qe7 2 7 . R h 5 f5 2 8 .Qg6 Qg7 29.Qe6 Qf7 30.Qc8 Qf8 31 .Qc7 Bg7 3 2 . Rf5 Q e 8 33 . Rg 5 Qf8 34 . R a5 cb 35.Ra7, 1 -0 (notes based on annotations by Goldemberg).

1 66

A d i ff e r e n c e o f o p 1 n 1 o n . G M M ikhalchishin considers that Black has good compensation for the pawn after the further moves 1 5 . . . Qd3 1 6. Bd3 g5 1 7 . Bg3 Rad8 1 8 . Bc2 Rfe8. IMPROVEMENT

I nstead of 1 4 .de , H uebner played 1 4 .d5 ! against Beliavsky (Munich 1 990). That game continued 1 4 ... c4 1 5.Qe2 g5, when M ikhalchishin gives 1 6. Bg3 N h5 1 7.b4 cb 1 8 .ab Ng3 ( 1 8... Nt4 1 9.Bf4 gt20.Nfd2 and 2 1 .b4) 1 9 .hg f5 20.ef Bd5 2 1 .Nbd2 ReB 22 .Qd3 as better for White. As it was, H uebner let fly with 1 6. Ng5 ! ? which also led to an exciting game with good chances for White. SOURCE

I n s ide C h e ss, Vo l . 3 , N o . 2 5 - 2 6 ( December 29, 1 990) , p.33.

E.C.O. BUSTED!

C78 note 62 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 B b7 7 .c3 Ne4 8.d4 Na5! ?

when Gdanski-Vo lzi n , Oakham 1 992, for exam ple, went 1 3 . . . gf 1 4 .Re1 Be7 1 5 .ab d6 1 6 .c4 Kd7 1 7. Nc3 Rhg8 1 8 . Kf2 f5 1 9 . Ra5 Bh4 20 .g3 Bf6 21 .Rd1 Bc6 22 .b4 d 5 2 3 .c5 (+- according to Gdanski). Howeve r, G M P atrick Wo lff an alyzes 1 3 . . . Ke7 from the diagram , noting that 1 4 .ab Kf6 favors Black. Therefore 1 4 .Bg5 Na1 1 5. R e 1 Kd6 1 6. Bf4 Kc6 1 7.d5 Kc5

(1 7. . . Kb6 1 8.Nd7 Ka7 1 9.Be3 leads to mate, or 18... Ka5 1 9.Bc7 Ka4 20.b3 Nb3 2 1 .Nb6 Ka5 22.Nc4 Ka4 23.Nb2#) leaves the position quite u nclear. SOURCE

Patrick Wolff, "Pan-Pacific I nternational," Chess Life, June 1 991 , p.27.

8 . . . Na5!? i s g ive n without com ment o r evaluation by E G O . EGO's m ai n line, 8 ... Be7, went out of fashion when White began to get h ealthy advantages afte r 9.Re1 d5 1 O.de Na5 1 1 . Bc2 0-0 1 2 .Nbd2 Nc4 1 3 .0e2! (better than 1 3.Nc4 ?! given by EGO), when 1 3 . . . Ncd2 1 4 . Nd2 Nc5 1 5 .Nb3 Nb3 1 6.ab c5 is + - , according to Kotkov i n Informant 44/404.

C78 note 81 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7 .d4 Nd4 8.Nd4 ed 9.e5 Ne4 1 O.c3 de 1 1 .Qf3 d5 1 2.ed Qf6 1 3.d7?! Kd7 1 4.Qg4 Ke8 1 5.bc h5 -+ ECO.

CORRECTION

We ' re now i n a positio n to co m m e n t o n 8 . . . N a5 !? . A n u m b e r o f g a m e s h a v e co n t i n u e d w i t h 9 . N e 5 N b3 1 O . Q b 3 Of6 1 1 . f3 N c5 1 2 . N g 4 N b3 1 3 . N f 6 ,

BUST

1 5. Nc3 ! (instead of 15.bc) h5 1 6.Qe2 Qe5 1 7 .Ne4 Be4 1 8 .f3 Bc5 1 9. Kh 1 , 1 -0 was Van der Wiei-Martin , Biel 1 985. It tu rns out, however, that EGO's query of 1 3 .d 7 ? ! i s correct, but for the w ro ng reaso n ! I nstead of 1 3 . . . Kd7 Black should

VOLUME C

1 67

play 1 3 . . . Kd8 ! as pointed out by Bruce Altschu ler i n Chess Life, when 1 4 .Qf6 Nf6 1 5 .Nc3 Kd7 1 6 . Bf7 gives Black at least equality.

C84 note 77 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.d4 ed 7.e5 Ne4 8.b4 0-0

SOURCE

Larry Evans, "Evans o n Chess," Chess Life, July 1 992, p. 1 4 .

cao

.E,

note 1 0

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Ne4 6.Re1 Nc5 7 .Nc3 Na4 8.Ne5 Be7 9.Nd5

9.Re1 Ng5 1 0.Nd4 Nd4 1 1 .Qd4 Ne6 1 2 .Qe4 d5 1 3.ed Qd6 1 4.c3 Bf6 - + ECO. IMPROVEMENT

0-0 1 O.Nc6 de 1 1 .Ne7 Kh8 1 2.Qh5 Be6 1 3.Re6 fe 1 4.Ng6 Kg8 1 5.Nf8 Qf8 1 6.b3! +- ECO. BUST

I n the diagrammed position Fred Meyer discovered 9 . . . Nb6! 1 O.Nc6 (1 O. Qh5 0-0) de 1 1 . Re7 (1 1 .Ne7 Be6 12.Nf5 Of6 ) Kf8 1 2 .Nb6 cb with an equal position .

I C C F G M Godes h as tried to revive 8 . b4 with 9 .Qd3 !?. Now Godes- Korolew, carr. 1 986-88 co n tinued 9 . . . Ng5 1 O. Bg5 Bg5 1 1 .c3 ! d6! 1 2 . Bc6 be 1 3 . Qd4 (1-0136) w h e n H ee msoth a nalyzes 1 3 . . .d e ! 1 4 .Qd8 Bd8 1 5 .Ne5 ReB ! 1 6 . Nc6 Bf6 1 7 . Nd4 Bb7 =.

SOURCE

Hermann Heemsoth, " 1 7th USSR Carr. C h . , 1 986-88," Fernschach International, J u n e 1 992, p.338.

=

SOURCE

Larry Evans, "Evans o n Chess ," Chess Life, June 1 993, p.20.

1 68

C84 note 89 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.d4 ed 7.e5 Ne4 8.Nd4 0-0 9.c4 Ne5 !?

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Give n without com m ent or evaluation by ECO. CORRECTION

Thanks to the game Suhanov-Zaitzev, Moscow 1 9 67 we can now say t h at 9 . . . Ne5(!) looks pretty good : 1 O . Re1 ?! ( 1 0.Bc2 Nf6!) Nf2 ! 1 1 . Kf2 Bc5 1 2 . Kg3

(12.Re5 Of6; 12.Kg 1 Oh4; 12.Be3 Oh4 13.Ke2 [13.Kg 1 Ng4] d5; 1 2. Re4!?) Qf6 1 3 . Bc2 Ng6 1 4 . Nf3 d5 1 5 . Nc3 Qd6? ! 1 6 . Ne5 Qf6 (16... Ne5? 1 7. Bf4!) 1 7 .Nf3 Qb6 ! 1 8 . Be3 Be3 1 9 . Re3 Qe3, 0-1 . Notes based on com ments by M i n ev. SOURCE

N ikolay M i n ev, "Surprising Moves and Ideas," Inside Chess, Vol .3, No.4 (March 5, 1 990} , p.26.

cas

we n t 1 3 . N c3 Qe8 1 4 . Ng4 (1 4.h3 d5!

1 5. ed Rd8 16.Ng4 Nd5 1 7.Nd5 Rd5 1 8. Q e2 Qc6 1 9. 14 Bh4 20. Rf1 ReB 21 .Ne3 Rd6 -+) Qg6 1 5 .Nf6 Bf6 1 6.Nd5 Rae8 1 7. Nf6 Rf6 1 8 .f3 d5 1 9.e5 Rf5 20 .f4 d4 2 1 .Qe2 Ree5 22 .fe ReS 23 .Be3 de 24 . Rad 1 h5 25 .g3 Qc6 , 0-1 . Notes by Malin in . SOURCE

Informant 55/342 .

C88 note 85 1 .e4 es 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.a4 Bb7 9.d3 d6 1 O.Nc3 Na5 1 1 .Ba2 b4 1 2.Ne2 c5 1 3.c3 c4

note 33

1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5 .0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7 .Bb3 0-0 8.d4 Nd4 9.Bf7 Rf7 1 O.Ne5 Rf8 1 1 .Qd4 c5 1 2.Qd1 Bb7 ! ?

1 4.Ng3 cd 1 5 .Bg5 h6 1 6.Bf6 Bf6 ECO.

=

BUST

Give n without com m ent o r evaluation by ECO. CORRECTION

The single game now avail able using EGO's suggestion makes it look strong i ndeed. Szczepanski-Malin i n , corr. 1 992

Seemingly without effort White was able to create dangerous passed pawns in Telbis-Grozescu , corr. 1 991 -92. From the diagram that game went 1 4 .cb cd 1 5 .Nc3 Nc6 1 6 . Bd5 Rb8 1 7 . b5 Nb4 1 8 . Bb7 Rb7 1 9 . ba Ra7 20 . Bg5 Nd7 2 1 . Be7 Qe7 22 . Nd5 Nd5 23 .ed Ra6 (23... Nc5 24.Nd4 Ra6 25.b4 ++-) 24 .Qd3 Nc5 25.Qc4 RbB 26.Ne5 de (26. .. Rb2 27.Nd3 Re2 28.Re2

Qe2 29.Re 1

VOLUME C

)

++-

1 69

27.b4 Nb3 28.Qa6 Na1 29.d6 Qd8 30.Ra1 Rb4 31 .Rd1 Rb6 32 .0c4 g6 33.d7 Rb8 34.Qd5 Rb4 35 .a5, 1 -0 . Notes by Telbis. SOURCE

CYB 5/200 .

C89 note 22 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.ed e4 1 0.dc ef 1 1 .d4 Re8 1 2.Bg5 Bg4 1 3 .h3 B h5 1 4.g4

C89 li ne 1 9 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.ed Nd5 1 O.Ne5 Ne5 1 1 .Re5 c6 1 2.Bd5 cd 1 3.d4 Bd6 1 4. Re3 Qh4 1 5 . h3 f5 1 6.Qf3 Bb7 1 7 .Nd2

�� � - -�

/:' . . . . . i'.

�� Bg6 1 5.Qf3

+·

ECO.

BUST

g5 1 8.Nf1 Rf6 1 9.Qe2 Kf7 20.Bd2 f4 =+ ECO. BUST

After 1 7 . . .g5 White turned th e tables in H u e b n e r- N u n n , Skellefte a 1 9 8 9 with 1 8 . Qe2 ! f4 1 9 . Nf3 Q h 5 2 0 . Ng 5 Qg6 21 . ReG Qg5 22.Rd6 Rae8 23. Re6 Kf7 24 . Re5+-, 1 -0/34 .

I n G ko u n t i n tas - H a l d a n e , Lo n d o n League 1 992 Black played 1 4 . . . Ng4 ! . We can o n ly g u e ss h o w this move was o v e r l o o k e d fo r so l o n g . N o w L e s Blackstock analyzes 1 5 . Be7 Re7 1 6 .hg Bg4 1 7. Re7 (1 7.Na3 Re2!) Oe7 1 8 .Qd2 Qf6, clai m ing that Black's t h reats are worth at least perpetual check. SOURCE

Les Blackstock, TN Pocketbook 1 .e4 Vo l . 1 ( Lo nd o n : Tre nds P u b l icati o n s , 1 993), pp. 38-39.

C89 note 205

IMPROVEMENT

Continuing from the diagram, therefore, Yi m analyzes 1 7 . . . f4 ! 1 8 . R e 6 R ad B 1 9.Nf1 oo .

SOURCE

CYB 5/205.

1 70

1 .e4 e5 2 .Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.ed Nd5 1 0.Ne5 Ne5 1 1 .Re5 c6 1 2.d4 Bd6 1 3.Re1 Qh4 1 4.g3 Qh3 1 5 .Be3 Bg4 1 6.Qd3 Rae8 1 7 .Nd2 Re6 1 8.a4 Qh5 1 9 . a b ab 2 0 . Nf1 Rfe8 2 1 . B d 1 B d 1

E.C.O. BUSTED !

22.Qd1 Qf5 23.Bd2 Re1 24.Be1 h5 25.h4 c5 ! = + ECO.

C92 1ine 1 6 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7 .Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nd7 1 O.d4 Bf6 1 1 .a4 Na5

�

� - ·� %' . . • . . z

BUST

I n a letter to Chess Life, Kenneth Jones, one of America's strongest correspon­ de nce players points out 26.Kg2 ! ? , citing two games: 1 ) Vilela-Perez, Havana ( m ) 1 989 went 2 6 . Kg2 cd 2 7.cd Nf6 28. Ne3 Oe4 29 .Qf3 Qd4, when 3 0 . Bc3 ! Q e4 31 . Bf6 gf 32 . R d 1 + = cou ld h ave been played. 2) K.Jon es-Gibbs, corr. 1 989-91 saw 26.Kg2 Re4 2 7 . 0f3 Oe6 28.dc Bc5 2 9 . Ra8 Bf8 3 0 . Bd2 f5 ! ? 3 1 . Rb 8 Qe5 32 . Rd 8 f4 ? 3 3 . Q d 3 , 1 - 0 . F ro m t h e diagram G M Joel Benjam i n analyzes 2 6 . Kg2 cd 27 .cd Re4 (27. . . Qg4 2B.Qg4 hg 29.Bd2 + -) 2 8 . Qd3 Qg4 2 9 . Bd2 Rd4 30.Qb5, with Wh ite on top . B enjam i n also. notes that N u n n and Harding, i n t h e 1 r b o o k Th e M a rs h a ll A ttack ( M ac M i l l a n 1 99 0 ) , consider White to h o l d a n e d g e i n t h e d i ag r a m , a n d recommend 26 .b3 .

1 2.Bc2 Nb6 1 3.ab ab 1 4 .Nbd2 c5 1 5.dc de 1 6.Qe2 c4 1 7 .Nh2 Qc7 1 8.Ng4 Bg4 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Geller- Krogius, Bad Worishofen 1 991 saw 1 2 . Ba2 ! , when the editors of Russian Chess R e vie w g i v e t h e f o l l o w i n g possibilities: 1 ) 1 2 . . . Nb6 1 3 . b4 Nac4 1 4 .a5 Nd7 1 5 .d5 ! Be? 1 6.Bc4 be 1 7.Na3 f5 1 8. ef Rf5 1 9. Nc4 +-, 2) 1 2 . . . Bb7 1 3 .d5! Be? 1 4. Nbd2 c6 (14 .. . t5 +-) 1 5.b4 Nc4 1 6. Nc4 be 1 7. Bc4 +-, and 3) 1 2 . . .ed 1 3.cd c5 1 4 .Nc3, and 1 5 .Nd5 +=. The actual game went 1 2 . . .c5? ! 1 3 .dc ! de 1 4 . Bd5 Rb8 +-. SOURCE

R C R 1 /245

SOURCE

Joel B e nj am i n , "Th eoretically Speaki ng," Chess Life, January 1 993 , p.22.

C95 note 74 1 .e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6

VOLUME C

171

5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7 .Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 1 0.d4 Nbd7 1 1 . N bd2 Bb7 1 2 .Bc2 Re8 1 3 .Nf1 B f8 1 4 . Ng3 g 6 1 5.Bg5 h6 1 6.Bd2 Bg7 1 7.Qc1 ! Kh7 1 8.h4 d5 1 9 .h5

de 20.hg fg 21 .Ne4 Ne4 22.Be4 Be4 23.Re4 +· ECO. BUST

One could almost say th at EGO's line is busted merely because G M 's are still willing to take on the Black side. From the diagram 1 9 . . . ed! is best, and after 20 .ed de 21 . Bc3 Bd5 = (Suetin, The Complete Spanish, p.212) 22.Nh4 Nf8 23.Nhf5 ! ? gf 24.Nf5 Beliavsky co nsiders White to have compensation for the piece (that only

leaves 20.e5, for which no examples exist, but 20 . . . dc 2 1 . Bc3 Ne4 seems safe enough -ed). M ea n w h i l e , i n stead of 1 8 . . .d5, N ikitin and Balashov give 1 8 . .. c5 1 9 . h5 cd 20.cd ed 2 1 .hg fg 22. Nd4 Ng4 !? 23 . Nf3 Rc8 = . There is even a third possibility on Black's 1 7th turn : he can play 1 7 . . . h5 as in S m i ri n-Georgadze , USSR 1 989, which went 1 8 . Bh6 N h 7 1 9 . Qd2 B h 6 2 0 . Q h 6 Qf6 2 1 .a4 Ndf8 22.d5! +=, but 1 /2- 1 /2 in 44. SOURCE

N IC 25, p.62.

1 72

E.C.O. BUSTED!

VOLUME D

VOLUME D

1 73

1 74

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Keybook ( Dave nport: Thinker's Press, 1 992) , pp. 1 1 9,1 23 .

000 note 35 1 .d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 de 4.f3 ef 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 B h5

001 line 1 2 1 .d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.f4 !?

7.Bb5 c6 8.Bc4 e6 9.g4 Bg6 1 0.Qe2 Bd6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 =+ ECO. IMPROVEMENT

7 . Bb5(?) simply spends a tempo to help Black stabilize th e center. White should play 7.g4 Bg6 8 . N e5 (8.Bc4 e6 9.Bg5 Bd6

1 0. Ne5 Nbd7 1 1 . Qe2 c6 1 2. h4 Oa5 1 3 . Nd 7 Kd 7 1 4 . Bf6 g f 1 5 . h 5 Bb4 1 6. 0-0-0 Bc3 1 7. hg hg 1 8.bc Oc3 19. Kb 1 bS 20.Bb3 Kc7 2 1 . Qf2 f5 22.Rh8 RhB 23.d5 cd 24. Qa7 Kd6 25.gf gf 26.Qf7 Qe3 27.Bd5, 1 -0. Hall-Conquest, England 1 9 78) e6 9.Qf3 c6 1 O.g5 Nd5 1 1 . Bd3 Nd7 1 2 . Ng6 hg 1 3 .0-0 Qe7 1 4 . Nd5 cd 1 5 .c4 de 1 6. Bc4 Qd6 (what else ?) 1 7. Qf7 Kd8 1 8 . Bf4 Qd4 1 9 . Kg 2 Qb2 20 . Rf2 Qc3 2 1 . Be 6 Qc6 2 2 . Kg3 Bd 6 23 . R d 1 Rf8 24 . Qd7, 1 -0 . Leisebein-An ikajew, corr. 1 987-88. N um erous examples of such attacks could be cited, but the point here is that Black almost always inserts . . . c6, so why provoke it? I ncidentally, we do think that Wh ite 's gambit, so popul ar among those rated below 2400, deserves more than a footnote in ECO! SOURCE

NOVELTY

Not considered by ECO, the move 4.f4 ! ? i s q u ite i nteresting. If 4 . . . e6 then 5.a3! prevents . . . Bb4, and White will proceed in Stonewall Dutch fashion with e3, Nf3, Be2 0-0 etc., having his "bad" Bishop outs de the pawn chain. Meanwh ile, when B l ack p l ay s . . . c5 and . . . Qb6 Wh ite answers with Rb1 , and the second player will wish he had a Knight on c6.

i

SOURCE

Help wanted! This idea was worked out by a correspondence player, and has been published ; h is identity, though, isn't known to me since I was shown White's l ayo ut seco n d - h an d . W i l l the own e r please step forward.

002 l i ne 3 1 .d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.dc e6 4.e4

Tim Sawyer, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit

VOLUME D

1 75

Be5 5.Bb5 Ne6 6.ed ed 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ne3 0-0 9.Bf4 Bg4 1 0.Be2 a6 = ECO. NOVELTY

Black's position , featuring an isolan i, is indeed dynamically equal. Those players who would prefer a more solid treatm ent, however, m ight try 4 . . . N f6 5 . ed Qd5! 6.Bd3 Qc5 7 . Nc3 Nbd7 8.0-0 Be? 9 . Be3 Qa5 1 0.a3 a6 1 1 .Qe2 0-0 1 2 . Rfd1 Qc7 1 3.Bg5 b6 1 4 . Ne4 Bb7 1 5 .Nf6 Bf6 (- ed) 1 6.Bh7 Kh7 1 7. Qd3 Kg8 1 8 .Qd7 Qd7 1 9 . Rd7 Bb2 2 0 . R b 1 Bf3 2 1 . R b2 Be4 22.Rb6 Bc2 23. Rbb7 Bg6 24.h4 Rfb8 25 . Rbc7 ReB 2 6 . f3 Rc7 2 7. Rc7 Rb8 28.Ra7 Bd3 29 . Rd7 Rb3 30. Be7 Rb1 31 . Kh2 Bf1 , 1 /2- 1 /2 in 52.

IMPROVEMENT

F ro m the d i ag r am B l ack equal ized immediate ly with 7 ... Bf5! i n M achulsky­ Gufe ld , M oscow 1 99 1 . B . Be2 = is the reco mendation of Russian Chess Review, but i n the game White played 8 .c4 ? ! and was worse after 8 . . .c5 ! 9.bc be 1 O .cd Ne4 ! , 0- 1 /25. SOURCE

R C R 1 /255.

003 note 64 1 .d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 g6 4.e3 Bg7 5 .N bd2 0-0 6 .e3 N bd7 7 .Be2 Rea 8.b4!? e5 !?

SOURCE

Georgiev-Se irawan, Brussels (5 min ute game) 1 992 .

003 note 61 1 .d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 g6 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nbd2 0-0 6.e3 b6 7.b4 (diagram) e5 !? 8.Be2 as 9.be be 1 0.0-0 a4 1 1 .Re1 Nbd7 1 2.e4 de 1 3.Ne4 Bb7 1 4.Bf6 Nf6 1 5 .de N d 7 1 6. N e d 2 Q e 8 , w i t h compensation -ECO.

1 76

E.C.O. BUSTED!

9.Nb3 b6 1 O.BbS e4 1 1 .Bc6 ef! 1 2.Ba8 fg 1 3.Rg1 h6 1 4 .Bf6 Nf6 1 5.Rg2 Bg4 1 6.Rg4 Ng4 1 7.Qg4 Qa8 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

C o m p a r e E G O ' s l i n e w it h N u n n ' s handling of the White pieces. H is calm , u n h u r ried appro ac h to the queens ide attack is worthy of i mitation . From the diagram: 9 . 0-0 h6 1 O . B h 4 e4 1 1 . N e 1 g5 1 2. Bg3 Nf8 1 3 . Rc 1 Ng6 1 4 .c4 c6 1 5 .b5 cb 1 6 .cb Re7 1 7 . Nc2 g4 1 8 . Nb4 h5 1 9 .Qc2 Be6 20.Bc7 Qd7 2 1 .b6 Ne8 22 .Qc5 Nc7 2 3 . bc R c8 2 4 . 0 a7 R c7 2 5 . Qb6 N h 4 26.Nb3 Nf5 2 7 . Nc5 Od8 28 . N a4 Qd7 29.Qa5 Qd6 30 .Qb6 Qd7 3 1 . Rc7 Qc7 3 2 . Q c 7 R c 7 3 3 . N b 6 R c 3 (33... Ne7 34.Bd1 and 35. Bb3 -ed) 34.N6d5 Bd5 35.Nd5 , 1 -0/53 . SOURCE

NOVELTY

I n the game Root-Silman, m/3 1 990 Black played 1 O . . . h6!, a waiting move. Silman attributes this idea to IM Peters, and obse rves that Wh ite has trouble finding a good move . For example, 1 1 .e5 fails to 1 1 . . . Ng4 1 2.Nb3 Bb6 1 3 . Bf4 f6, and 1 1 .b4 Bd6 is just loosening, while 1 1 . ed is prematu re . Wh ite finally played 1 1 .h3 , but after 1 1 . . . Nh5! 1 2 . Nb3 Ng3 1 3 .0d1 Ne4 ! 1 4 . Be4 de 1 5 .Nc5 ef 1 6.0f3 Ne5! 1 7.0e3 b6 1 8 .Nd3 Nd3 1 9.Qd3 Bb7 2 0 . B e3 a d raw was ag reed . S i l m an concludes that 1 O . . . h6 is " . . . a complete answer to the Colle Syste m ." SOURCE

M itchell Cassotto, "Summit Challenge M atch , " Inside Chess, Vo l .3 , N o . 2 4 ( December 1 0, 1 990) , p.5.

N u nn- Kamsky, Belgrade 1 992.

006 note 45 DOS l i ne 9

1 .d 4 dS 2.c4 BfS 3.cd Bb1 4.Rb1 Qd5

1 .d4 dS 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 cS 5.c3 N c6 6.N bd 2 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.dc BcS 9.e4 Qc7 1 O.Qe2

5.a3 Nc6 6.Nf3 0-0-0 7.Qc2!? Nd4 8.Nd4 Qd4 9.g3 e6 1 0.Bg2 Qc5 1 1 .Qa4, with com pensation -ECO. IMPROVEMENT Bd6 1 1 .Re1 Ng4 1 2.h3 NgeS 1 3. Ne5 NeS 1 4.ed ed 1 5.Nf3 Nd3 1 6.Qd3 Qc4 1 7 .Rd1 Qd3 1 8.Rd3 Rd8 1 9.Be3 Be6 20.Rad1 B c7 = ECO.

Wh ite m ust treat the position in gambit fash ion (7 .e3 e5 =+ ECO) , b u t w h y n o t

VOLUME D

1 77

sacrifice the a-pawn rather than a good center pawn ? I n a letter to Inside Chess Mark Ginsburg , cal l i n g 5 . a3 " i nsipid", proposed 5 . e3 Qa2 6 . Bd 3 , p l a n n i n g Ne2 -c3 . U n fo rtu n ately, I M D o n aldson consulted T h e Chess Mac h i n e , which cru nched out the fo llowing co ntinuation : 6 . . . e5 ?.de Nc6 8.Nf3 Rd8 =+ (Inside

Chess, VolA, No.24 [December 9, 1 99 1], p.3). But never say die ! Wh ite can play 5 . N f3 ! ? f r o m t h e d i a g r a m , w h e n Sharif-Capro n , French C h . 1 992 went 5 . . . Qa2 (5. . . Nc6 6. Bd2 Nf6 7.e3 Ne4 [7. . . e6 B. Oa4 Bd6 9.Bc4 Oe4 1 0. 0- 0 0-(),o] 8. 0a4 Nd2 9.Nd2 e5 1 0.Be2 Bb4 1 1 .Bf3 e4oo Gelfman-Orlov, corr. 1 988} 6. Bd2 Nf6 7.Qc2 Qd5 (7. . . c6 8. e4) 8.Qc7 Na6 (B... Qc6!?) 9.Qe5 e6 1 O . Qd5 Nd5 1 1 .e4 Ndc7 (11 . . . Ndb4 12.Bb5) 1 2 .b4 ! b5 1 3 .Bd3 Be7 1 4 . Ke2 +- 0-0-0 1 5 .Ke3 Bf6 1 6.Bc3 Kb7 1 7.h4 Rd7 1 8.g4 h5 1 9 .g5 Bd8 20. Ne5 Re7 2 1 . Be2 g6 22 . R h3 NbS 23 .Nd3 , 1 -0. Notes based on comments by Falchetta.

Nge7 7.e3 a6 8.a3 Ng6 9.Bg3 Be7 1 O.Be2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 += ECO. BUST

Bareev-Speelman , Hastings 1 992/93 saw 6 .. .f6 ! , and after 7.e3 g5 8. Bg3 Nge7 Bareev already claims a slight advantage for B lack. Play continued with 9.Qa4 Bg7 1 O.b4 a6 1 1 .Nc3 0-0 1 2 . Be2 Bg6 1 3.h3 h6 1 4.b5 ab 1 5 . N b 5 Rca 1 6 . 0 - 0 B e 8 (16.. .Bh5!?) 1 7. Rab1 f5 1 8.Qb3 f4 1 9.ef gf 20.Bh2 Bh5 21 . Rbd1 , and now Bareev gives 21 . . . Kh8!, plan ning . . . Ra8 and . . . Nf5 =+ . SOURCE

Informant 56/402.

D07 1 ine 1 1 1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bg4 s.cd Nd5 6.e4 Nc3 7.bc es 8.d5 NbS 9.Qa4 Nd7 1 O.Ne5 Qf6

SOURCE

Giovanni Falchetta, The Keres Defence ( Bologna: S1 Editrice, 1 992) , p. 1 9 .

006 note 50 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.Nf3 e6 4.Qb3 Nc6 5.c5 Rb8 6.Bf4 !?

1 1 . N g4 Qc3 1 2 .Kd1 Qa1

+=

ECO.

W h e t h e r W h ite c a n g e t a s l ig h t advantage i n this line is debatable, but no one h as bothered to try since th e following move was d iscovered : BUST

1 1 . Be2! wins cleanly. The best that B lack can do is 1 1 . . . c6 ( 1 1 . . . b5 and 1 1 .. . Bd6 are

1 78

E.C.O. BUSTED!

nearly instant failures) 1 2.dc Qe5 1 3.cd Bd7 1 4.Qd4 with zero compensation .

1 99 1 (notes based on those of Russian

Chess Review). SOURCE

SOURCES

1 ) Informant 44/438. 2) Eric Sch iller, How to Play the Chigorin

RCR 1 /256 .

Defense in the Queen 's Gambit Declined (Coraopolis: Chess Enterprises, 1 99 1 } , pp.91 -92.

007 note 50 1 .d4 dS 2 .e4 Ne6 3.Ne3 de 4.e3 es 5.d5 NaS 6.Qa4 e6 7.b4 eb 8.ab Qb6 9.Bd2 Nb3 1 O.de be 1 1 .Nd5 Qb7 1 2.Rb1

007 note 2 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 N e6 3.ed Qd5 4.Nf3 e5 5.Ne3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Be3 7.Be3 e4 ! = ECO.

Ne5 1 3.Qa1 Qd7 1 4.Nb6 ab 1 5.Qa8 b5= ECO. NOVELTY

BUST

Afte r the further 8 . N e5 th eory g ives 8 . . . Ne5 9 .de Be6 or 9 . . . Ne7. An interesting idea, however, and one wh ich m akes Wh ite work for equal ity, is 8 . N e5 e3! (=+ according to Russian Chess Review) 9 .f3

(9.fe Ne5 1 0.de Qd1 1 1 . Rd 1 Be6 =+: 9.Nc6 ef 1 0. Kf2 be 1 1 .e4 Oe4 12.Bd3 [12.d5 Nf6] Of4 -+) Nge7 1 O . Qd3 Ne5 1 1 .de Qd3 1 2.ed Bf5 1 3.d4 0-0-0 1 4. Bc4 Be6 1 5.b3 ! (15. Bb3 Bb3 1 6.ab a6, and 1 7. . . Nd5, 1 8. . . f5 =+) Rd7 1 6 . Ke2 Nf5 1 7 . Rad 1 R hd8 1 8 .d5 ! (1 8.Be6 {1 8.g4 Bc4 19.bc Nd4 20. Bd4 Rd4 -++] fe 1 9.g4 Nell 20.Ke3 Nd5 2 1 . Kd2 Rf7 22.Rhf1 Rdf8 -+). Now a balanced game was reached after 1 8 . . . Bd5 1 9 . Rd5 Rd5 20.Bd5 Rd5 , 1 /2- 1 /2 i n 3 4 . Kh arito n ov- M alj u t i n , S mo le n sk

I nstead of 1 2 . .. Nc5 Black gains a clear advantage with the simple 1 2 . . . Qd7 !, as noted by A.J.Tait. IMPROVEMENT

I n stead of 5.d5 White can, if he wishes, reach a normal-looking isolani position with 5 . Nf3 ! ed 6.ed Bg4 7. Bc4 +=. NOVELTY

After EGO's 8 . . . Qb6 Tait analyzes 9.d6!? Bd6 (9. . . Nb3 1 0.Nd5 +-) 1 0 .Qa5 Qb3=. Also , Gill-Tait, corr. 1 990-1 saw White play 8 . Bd2!? rather than 8.ab, and the game continued 8 . . . Bd7 9 . ab b6 1 O .dc Nc6 1 1 . Bb5 N b4 1 2 . Ke2 a6 1 3 . Bd7 Qd7 1 4 . Qd7 Kd 7 1 5 . Nf3 f6 1 6 . Rhd1 Kc7

VOLUME D

1 79

1 7.Nb5 Kc6 1 8 .Na3 Rd8 1 9 .Rac1 Kb7 20. Bb4 Rd1 , when Wh ite sho uld have tried 2 1 .Bf8 ! Rc1 22. Bg7 Rc7 23 . Bh8 h6 24.Ne5 ! fe 25. Be5oo -Tait.

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 es 3.de d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Be6 6.Nbd 2 Qd7 7.Bg2 0-0-0 8.0-0 h5!?

SOURCE

CYB 7/269 .

008 note 7 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.de d4 4.e4 Nc6 5 .f4 g5 6.Bd3 gf 7 .Bf4 Nge7 8 . Bg3 Ng6 9.Qh5 Nb4

Given without com m ent or evaluation by ECO. CORRECTION

Here is some addition al informatio n : ECO's 1 st edition of Volume D continued 9 . R e 1 h4 1 O.a3 hg 1 1 .hg Bh3oo. However, S M Eugene Curtin calls 8 . . . h 5 dubious while E ric Sch iller, on th e other hand, gives 8 . . . h5 ! , saying ''This is the move which makes the variation playable" (How 1 0.Qe2 h5

-+

ECO.

IMPROVEMEMT

Mi nev suggests the untested 1 O. Ke2 !?, which at least has the virtue of keeping W h i t e ' s Q u e e n o n i ts b e s t p o s t . Unfo rtunate ly, there i s n o supporting analysis, so please send your games and ideas to the publisher! SOURCE

N iko l ay M i n ev, " M i n ev o n Tactics , " Inside Chess, Vol.3, No.9 (May 1 4 , 1 990), p. 1 9.

to Play t h e A lbin C o u n t e rg a m b i t [Coraopolis: Chess Enterprises, 1 99 1], p.84). Schil ler goes o n to give seven alternatives for White from the diagram ­ except this o n e : NOVELTY

9 . N e 4 ! B c 4 1 O . Bg 5 was E p s te i n ­ W e a v e r , D a l l a s 1 9 9 1 . C u rt i n n o w analyzes 1 0 . . . Re8 1 1 . Rc1 Bd5 1 2 .Nc5 Bc5 1 3 .Rc5 f6, "and Black does not stand too badly." So be forewarned that 8 ... h5, though it may be Black's main chance in the d iag ram , is the subj ect of m ixed opinion . SOURCE

009 note 1 0

1 80

Clarence Callaway, "Simms, Jones Win Lon e Star Open," Texas Knights, Vo1 .33, No.1 (Sep/Oct 1 99 1 ), p . 1 3 .

E.C.O. BUSTED!

01 0 l i ne 2 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cd cd 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bf4 Qb6 6.e3 ! Qb2 7.Rc1 Nc6 8.Bd3

1 5. Rfc 1 Ra6!] Kd7 15.Na8 QaB 16. Qc2 Ba6) Qe7 1 3 . Bb5 ab 1 4 .Nb5 Kd8 1 5 .0c2! Ra6 1 6. Rc3 ! Bb7 1 7. Rb1 ! Ne8 1 8 .Nc7 Qc7 1 9 . Bc7 Kc7 20.Qb3 Nd6 21 .e4! de 22 .d5 ed 23.Nd4 ! . There's plenty of food for thought here ! SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vo l .3, N o . 8 (April 30, 1 9 90) , p. 1 2 . Note : observe the move order in Gulko-Cherbakov, Helsinki 1 992, wh ich went 1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 c6 3.cd cd 4 . Bf4 Qb6 5 . Nc3 Nf6 6.Rc1 Bd7 7.e3 0b2 8 . Bd3 e6 9 .Nge2 Qa3 1 0 .0-0 a6 1 1 . Be5 Be? 1 2 .e4 Bc6 1 3.ed ed 1 4 .Ng3 Nbd7 1 5 .Nf5 g6 1 6 .Nb1 Oa4 1 7.Nd6 Kf8 1 8 .0a4 Ba4 1 9 . Nb7 + = . However, Gulko's excellent annotations (Informant 55!369) allow fo r ample maneuvering room on the Black side. Bg4 9.Nge2 Be2 1 0.Be2 e5 1 1 .de Bb4 1 2 .0-0 ! Bc3 1 3. Rc2 ! Qb4 1 4.ef Bf6 1 5 .Qd5 +- ECO. BUST

Having stolen White's b-pawn i n the early opening (a risky procedure in any case) , it s e e m s i l logical fo r Black to de nude his queens ide with 8 . . . Bg4 just to give up the Bish op pair, and the n open the position with 1 O . . . e5 . Based on Black's defe nsive scheme i n the game below, however, h e should be able to escape with his gains by conti n u i ng from the diagram with 8 . . . a6 ! 9 . Nge2 (9.Na4 Qb4 1 0.Ke2 Nd7) e6, followed by 1 O . . . Qa3/b4/b6 as t h e s i t u a ti o n d e m a n d s . Wh ite undoubtedly has compensatio n , but the m aterial-mi nded second player can take comfort i n his solid-looking positio n . IMPROVEMENT

Instead of 7 . Rc1 , the g ame Seirawan­ Dreev, Reykjavik 1 99 0 we nt 7. Bb5 ! Nc6 8. Nge2 Qa3 9 . Ba4 ! a6 1 O.Rb1 e6 1 1 .0-0 . Now Seirawan analyzes t h e following variation wh ich , as he says, "lies with i n a labyrinth " : 1 1 . . .b5! 1 2.Rb3! (12.Bb5 ab

1 3 . Nb5 Qa5 1 4 . Nc 7 { 1 4 . Oc2 Kd7!!

01 0 note 26 1 .d 4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e5 4.cd cd 5.Nf3 e4 6.Ne5 f6 7 .Oa4

Ke7 8.Qb3 Ke6 9.g3 !? fe 1 0.Bh3 Kf6 1 1 .Qd5 N c6 1 2.de Kg6 1 3.Qe4 +- ECO. BUST

F rom the diagram Black has 7 . . . Nd7 8.Ng4 Kf7 ! ! , threate n ing to wi n a piece w i t h 9 . . . N b 6 . Wied e n ke l l e r - E n gqvist, Sweden 1 990 continued 9. Ne3 (9.Nd5

VOLUME D

1 81

Nb6! 1 O.Nb6 Qb6 1 1.Ne3 Bb4 12.Bd2 Bd2 13.Kd2 Qb2 1 4.Nc2 Be6 15. Qb4 Qb4 1 6. Nb4 Ne 7, " with no p ro b le m s " -Engqvist) N b 6 1 O . Q b 3 B e 6 1 1 . a 4 (S. Carlsson-Engqvist, Sweden 1 988 went 1 1 .f3 f5 12.fe fe 13.g3 Nf6 1 4.Ng2 Nh5 15.a4 Qd7 16.Nf4 Nf4 1 7.Bf4 Nc4 1 8. Bg2 Be7 1 9. 0-0 Rhf8 20. Rf2 Kg8 = +) a5 1 2 . g 3 N e 7 1 3 . h 4 N c6 1 4 . N c2 N b 4 1 5 . Bh3? (losing, but Donaldson notes that Black was already much better) Bh3 1 6. R h3 QcB 1 7. R h 1 Nc2 1 8 . Qc2 Bb4 1 9 .0b3 Qc4 20. Qc4 Nc4 2 1 . Kd 1 Bc3 22 .bc b5 ! - + , 0- 1 /38. SOURCE

i n the Exchange Slav his dark-squared Bishop is less useful on c1 . SOURCE

G . Falchetta, "Slav Defence - D1 2 ," CYB 7, p . a .

0 1 4 note 61 1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 c S 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.cd cd 5.Nc3 N cS S.Bf4 Bf5 7.e3 eS 8.Bb5 Nd7 9 . Qa4 R e S 1 0 . 0 - 0 aS 1 1 . B cS R e S 1 2. Rfc1 Be7 1 3.Qb3 R bS !? 1 4.Qd1 Rb2 1 5.Na4

J o h n Do n ald so n , " G a m b it C o r n e r , " Inside Chess, Vol.3, No.1 9 (October 1 , 1 990) , pp. 1 4- 1 5 .

01 2 note 2 1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 cS 3.Nf3 NfS 4.e3 Bf5 5.cd Bb1 ?! S.Rb1

Rb5oo ECO. CORRECTION

After 1 5 . . . Rb5 Kondratev analyzes the conti nuation 1 6. Bc7 Oa8 1 7.Ne5 + = . IMPROVEMENT

Qd5 7.a3 es 8.Qc2 Be7 9.Bd3 hS 1 o.e4 Qd8 1 1 .0-0 Nbd7 1 2.b4 ! + - ECO. IMPROVEMENT

6 . . .cd! is much better, when White can c l a i m n o m o r e th a n t h e s l i g h t e s t advantage . Compared with norm al lines

1 82

Th e refore, i n the game Kastaranov­ R ubinchik, 1 7th USSR Carr. Ch . B lack diverged fro m the diagram with 1 5 . . . R b4 ! . Then 1 6. Bc7 Qc8 ! 1 7. Nd2 {1 7.Ne5 Ne5 1 8. Be5 Qd7) Rc4 ! ? led to an interesting game that was drawn in 48 moves . Black could , h owever, h ave played 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 8 .a3 {1 8. Bd6 Bd6 1 9. Rc8 ReB with compensation) Rc4 ! 1 9 . Nc4 de 20 . Bg3 b5 = + . Notes by Kastaranov.

E.C.O. BUSTED !

SOURCE

CYB 3/28 1 .

01 4 note 64 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.cd cd 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bf4 Bf5 7.e3 e6 8.Bb5 Nd7 9 . Qa4 R c a 1 0 . 0 - 0 a 6 1 1 . B c6 R c 6 1 2. Rfc1 Be7 1 3.Ne2 Q b 6 1 4.Rc6 be 1 5 .Rc1 Qb2 1 6.Qc6 Qe2 1 7 .Ne5 Ob5? 1 8.Qc8 Bd8 1 9.a4 Qa4 20 .Nc6 0-0 21 .Qd7 Qa3 22.e4 ! ++- ECO.

Given without comment or evaluation by ECO. CORRECTION

EGO's sequence starting with 1 5 . . . Bf8!? was suggested to avoid the main note's con tinuation of 1 5 . . . Rf8 1 6.ed Nd7 1 7.Nf3 + · . However, it now seems that the whole variation beginning 1 1 . . . Nf4 ( !) may be better than EGO's line 9, from which note 53 is derived. From the diagram Fiorito­ Smyslov, Buenos Aires 1 990 saw 1 7 .0-0 Nd? 1 8. Nf3 Qg4 1 9 . Bh6 (19. Qh7 Nc5 BUST

There's always a free th inker in the crowd: Privara notes the fu rthe r 22 . . . e5! 23 .Qf5 ef 24.Qf4 deoo. I suppose he didn 't know that E C O h ad already declared Wh ite the wi n ne r! SOURCE

CYB 4/260 .

01 5 note 53

20. Be3 Nb3 2 1 . Rad1 Qg6 22. 0g6 fg 23. Nd2 Nd2 24. Rd2 b3 25. Rc 1 c5 26. Rdd 1 c4 - + , Soffer- Grunberg, Germany 1 991} Qh5 ! 20.Bg7 Qh8 2 1 .Bh 8 B h 6 2 2 . g4 (Black was threa tening 22 . . . Ke 7. Instead o f the tex t, Van Wely- Van der Sterren, Dutch Ch. 1991 went 22.Bf6 Nf6 23.ef d2 24.Rfd1 RdB 25. h4 Be2 26.Ng5 Bg5 27.hg c5 28.b3 c4 29.bc b3, 0- 1) Ke7 23.g5 RhB 24.gh c5 25 . Rfe1 c4 26.Rac1 Rg8 27.Kh1 Bb7 28. Re3 Ne5 29 .h7 R h8 , 0-1 . Notes based on an notations by I M Donaldson. SOURCE

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 de 5 .e4 b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 e6 8.Ng5 !? h6 9.Nge4 b4 1 0.Nb1 Ba6 1 1 . N bd2 Nf4 ? ! 1 2.Qg4 Nd3 1 3.Bd3 cd 1 4 .Nd6 Bd6 1 5 .Qg7 Bf8!? 1 6.Qh8 Qd4

J o h n D o n a ld so n , "Gambit Corner," Inside Chess, Voi.S, No.8 (April 27, 1 992) , p.27.

VOLUME D

1 83

ECO also gives the following sequence:

01 6 note 39 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Ne3 de S .a4 Bg4 6.Ne5 B h5 7.f3 Nfd7 8.Ne4 e5 9.Ne4 Bb4 1 0.Bd2 Qe7 1 1 .de 0-0 1 2.Re1 Bg6 1 3.Bb4 Qb4 1 4.Qd2 Qa4 1 5.Ng3 b5 1 6.Nd6 Na6 1 7.e4 Naes 1 8.Qe3 Ne6 1 9.Be2 b4 20.Qe3 Qa2 21 .Ne4 Nb6 22.f4 Ne4 23.Be4 Qb2 24.0-0 aS 25.f5 Qe5 26.fe fe 27.Rf8 Rf8 28.Bb3 +-

1 5 .Ned6! (instead of 15.Ng3 as played by Miles) b5 1 6.Qa5 Qa5 1 7 .NaS Nes 1 8.f4 Ne4 1 9. Nae4 be 20.e4 !

Be4 21 .Ne4 Rea 22.Re4 fS 23.Kf2 fe 24.Rd4! e3 25.Kf3 +- ECO. BUST

F ro m th e diagram Flear gives 20 . . . Rd8 2 1 .e5 Bd3oo. ECO, citing Mifes- Ree, Oste nde 1 985.

SOURCE

Glenn

CORRECTION

M iles claims a clear advantage for White here, but let's look at the n ext few moves of this game not given by ECO , with the original notes by M iles : 28 . . . h5! (28. . . Ra8 30.Ba4) 29 .h4 Kh7 30.Rc5 Oa1 31 . Kh2 a4 (with counterplay) 32 . Be6 Qf6 33. Bf5 Oh4 34.Kg 1 b3 35. Bg6 Kg6 36.Nf5 Qg4 (forced: 36... Qf6? 37.Rc6! wins) 37.Rc6 Kh7 38. Rb6 Rf7 39.Kh2 Rc7 =. The game was drawn on move 49. It is interesting that nowhere does M iles point out any way Wh ite could h ave strengthened h is play ­ does White have a "clear advantage" in the diagrammed position ?

Sla v fo r the Tou rname n t Player ( Lo n d o n : B . T. Batsford Ltd , 1 988), p.5 1 .

01 7 note 1 0 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 de 5.a4 BfS 6.Ne5 eS

SOURCE

Informant 40/462.

01 6 note 39a

1 84

F l e a r, Th e

E.C.O. BUSTED!

7 .e3 ed 8.Bc4 e6 9.ed

+=

ECO.

BUST

BUST

It is doubtful whether 6 . . .c5(?) is playable at all after the following short but dramatic game. From the diagram Kalinichenko-Landolfi, carr. 1 9aa-92 went 7.e4! Ne4 a.Qf3 e6 9.Nf7 Kf7 1 0.g4 Nc3 (1 0... 0f6 1 1.gf! ef [1 1 ... Qf5 12.0e4] 12.Bc4 +-) 1 1 .gf! Qd5 (1 1 ...Nd5 12.fe

Ke6 13. Qe4 Kd6 1 4.Bc4 Qe7 15.Bd5 +-) 1 2.fe Ke8 (12... Ke6 13.Qg4 Kf7 14.Bg2 +-) 1 3.Qf7 Kda 1 4.bc Be? 1 5. Rg 1 Rf8 1 6.Bg2 Qd6 1 7.Qg7! Qe6 1 8.Qe5 Qf7 1 9.Qd5 Qd5 20.Bd5 Bh4 (20... Nc6 21.Rb1 Na5 22.Rb5 ++-) 2 1 . Be3 cd 22.cd Nd7 23. Rg7 Rc8 24.Be6! ++- Rc7 25.Rh7 Be? 26.Ke2 Nf6 27.Rg7 Nh5 28.Rf7!, 1 -0. Notes condensed from annotations by Kalinichenko .

I n s t e ad o f 1 4 . 0 - 0 W h ite h as t h e beautiful 1 4 .Qe2 ! ! , and now 1 4 . . . Qc3

( 1 4 . . . Bc5 1 5. 0e6 Kd8 1 6. Kd2! Kc7 1 7.Kc2 ++-) 1 5 . Kf1 Qa1 (the best try was 15... Kd8 1 6. Bb2 Qb4 1 7.Be6 Kc7 18.Rd1 +-) 1 6.Qe6 Kda 1 7. Ke2 ! ! Qa4 1 a. Rd 1 Qd1 1 9 . Kd 1 Bc5 20 .Qf7 Rea 2 1 . Qg7 Nd7 22 . B f7 Rta 23 . B e 6 Nf6 24 .Qb7 Rea 2 5 . Q a8 Kc 7 2 6 . B f4 , 1 - 0 ( Van der Sterren-Petursson, Brocco 1 992). Notes based on an notations by Van der Sterren. IMPROVEMENT

I nstead of 1 3 . . . Qa5(?) 011 gives 1 3 . . . Qd1 1 4 . Kd1 Nd5 1 5 . Kc2 Rb8 ! , planning . . . Be? and . . . Kd7 without evaluation (Informant

55/380).

SOURCE

Informant 56/425 .

SOURCE

N I C 26, p . 1 07.

01 7 note 63 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 de 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7 .f3 cs 8.e4 ed 9.ef N c6 1 O.Ne6 be 1 1 .fe fe 1 2 .Be4 de 1 3.be? ! CaS !

1 4.0-0 !? Qc5 1 5.Qd4 Qd4 1 6.ed4 Nd5 = ECO.

01 7 note 71 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 de 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7 .f3 Bb4 8.e4 Be4 9.fe Ne4 1 0.Bd2 Qd4 1 1 .Ne4 Qe4 1 2.Qe2 Bd2 1 3. Kd2 Qd5 1 4.Ke2 Na6 1 5.Ne4 Qf5

1 6.Kc1 Rd8 1 7.Qe5 Qf2oo ECO.

VOLUME D

185

IMPROVEMENT

This line cam e u nder scruti ny when Karpov took the White side a few times in 1 988. He showed that the King can take care of itself by playing 1 6.Kc3! 0-0 1 7.Qe5 Qf2 1 8 .Bd3 Rad8 1 9.Rhf1 Qh4 20.Qe4 Oh6 21 .Qe3 Qh4 22. Rf4 +- (Karpov-Tukmakov, Gijon 1988). Atfirst Black soughtto improve with 1 5 . . 0-0-0 instead of 1 5 . . . Qf5 , then White looked for an antidote , and so forth . The debate continues today, and the entire variation can still be considered "unclear", but refinements are coming fast and furious . Currently White is saving a tempo after 1 3 . . . Qd5 with 1 4 . Kc3 i m mediately, and Black's best chances seem to l ie with 1 4 . . . 0-0 or 1 4 . . . b5.

1 .d4 dS 2.e4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Ne3 de s.a4 BfS 6.e3 e6 7.Bc4 Bb4 8.0-0 N bd7 9.Qb3 Qb6 1 O.e4 Bg6 1 1 .Be6 fe 1 2 .as BaS 1 3.Qe6 Kd8 1 4.eS Ne4 1 S.Ne4 Be4

.

SOURCE

01 8 note 1 9

BUST

I n M agerramov-Tu km akov, H e l s i n k i 1 992 Black played the m u ch supe rior 1 7 . . . Nf6! . There followed 1 8 .a6 (1 8.Bc5

KbB 1 9. de Re5 20. Bd4 Ra5, with compensation) b6 1 9 .c4 Nde4 ! , when White sho u ld have tried either 20 .d5 c5 2 1 . Ba4 R e 7 22 . Bc6 Nd6 2 3 . Ng6 h g 24. Rab1 Nd7, o r 20 . Ng6 hg 2 1 .c5 b5 (21 ... Nd2oo) 2 2 .d 5 ! Nd2 2 3 . Q e3 N b3 2 4 . d 6 Q d 7 2 5 . Q b3 K b 8 ! , p l a n n i n g 26 . . . Ka8 and 2 7. . . Rb8. Notes based on an notations by Tukmakov.

z

I n the diagrammed position White has the q u i e t 1 6 .0f7 ! ! , d iscovered by S M David G l iksman . Strau ss- Lakdawala, Southern California Ch. 1 992 then went 1 6 . . . Rf8 ( 1 6... Bf3 1 7.e6!; 1 6. . .Bg6 1 7.Qg7 ReB 1 8.d5! -Short) 1 7.Qg7 Bd5 (1 7.. .Bb4

1 8.Bg5 KcB 1 9. e6 Qcl 20.Be7! -Peters) 1 8 .e6 Be6 1 9.0g5 Kc8 (19 ... Kc7 20.Ra5 RaeB 2 1 .Bf4 KcB 22.d5! Qa5 [22... Bd5 23.Rd5} 23.de Qg5 24.ed Kdl 25.Bg5 Rf3 26.gf RgB 2 7. h4 wins - Strauss and Gliksman) 2 0 . Ra5 Rg8 2 1 . O h5 Bg4 2 2 . Rg5 ! B h5 (22. . . Rg5 23. Qg5 Bf3 24.Re 1 ! Qd8 25.Qf5 Bd5 26.Bg5 QgB 27.Re7 QdB 28.Rh7 OeB 29.Re7 OdB 30.h4 -Peters) 23 . Rg8 Nf8 (23 ... Qd8 24. Rd8 KdB 25.Ng5 Bg6 26. Bf4 Nf6 27.Be5 Nd5 28.f4 Bf5 29.Nf7, and 30.Nd6 -Strauss and Gliksman) 24 . R f 8 Kd7 2 5 . N e5 Kc7 26. Ra8 Od4 27.Re1 Be2 28.Re8 c5 29. R e7 Kc8 30 . Nc6, 1 -0 . SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vo l.5, No .21 (October 26, 1 992) , pp. 1 7- 1 8 .

01 8 note 23 1 86

z. . . . .

BUST

1 .d4 dS 2.e4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Ne3 d e s .a4 BfS 6.e3 e6 7 .Be4 Bb4 8.0-0 N bd7 9.Qe2 Bg6 1 O.e4 Be3 1 1 .bc Ne4 1 2.Ba3 Qc7 1 3.Rfe1 0-0-0 1 4.aS Rhe8 1 S. Nh4 Nd6 1 6.Bb3 eS 1 7.Qf3! N bS 1 8.Ng6 hg 1 9 .Bf7! +- ECO.

N I C 26, pp. 1 07-1 08.

� "-"

/. . . . . . z

1 6.NgS BdS 1 7 . Nf7 Ke8 1 8.Nd6 Ke7 1 9.Qe7 Qd4 20.RaS QeS -+ ECO.

Informant 54/362-363.

SOURCE

�� it ��

�··"-"

E.C.O. BUSTED!

020 note 42 1 .d4 d5 2 .e4 de 3.e4 Ne6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.d5 Ne5

played 8 . . .f5! i n the diagrammed position against Karpov (m/3, Linares 1 992). That game proceeded 9.ef ef 1 O.Nc3 (tactics 6.Bf4 Ng6 7 .Bg3 e5 8.Be4 Bd6 9.Qb3 Nf6 1 O. Bb5 Kf8 1 1 . Nfd2 Nh5 1 2 .Ne3 Nhf4oo ECO. NOVELTY

C ar e fo r a m o r e d y n a m i c flavor of " unclear"? Then try 6 .Qd4 ! ? Nf3 7.gf Bf3 (7. .. Bd7 -Minellj 8 . Bc4 ! , and now 8 . . . c6 (8.. . Bh 1 9. Bb5 c6 1 0.dc Od4 1 1 .cb KdB

12.ba=0 Kc7 13.Bf4 e5 1 4.Nd2 et 15. Rc1 wins -Minev) 9. Rg 1 , with good co m p ­ e n s ation accord i n g to M i n ev.

based on 1 0. Qh5 must reckon with an eventuai . . . Nc2, and Short mentions 1 0.a3 f5) f5 1 1 . Bf3 N4d5 1 2. Bd2! Be6 1 3.Nge2 Qd7 1 4 . 0 - 0 0-0-0 1 5 . R e 1 (15. a4!? -Short) Rg8 ! 1 6 . Bg5 Re8 1 7 .Nf4 Nf4 1 8 . Bf4 g5 1 9 . Be5 Bg7 20 . Rc1 Be5, and n o w S h o rt c o n s id e r s 2 1 . Re5 to be unclear. As it was, Karpov played 21 .de? and was lucky to draw in 94 moves. SOURCE

Informant 54/371 .

020 note 69

SOURCE

N ikolay M i n ev, " M i n e v o n Tactics , " Inside Chess, Vo i.S, No.3 ( Febru ary 1 7 , 1 9 92) , p.29.

1 .d4 dS 2.e4 de 3.e4 es 4.d5 Nf6 5.Ne3 b5

020 note 52 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 d e 3.e4 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.Be4 Nb6 6.Bd3 N e6 7.Be3 Nb4 8.Be4 (diagram) e6 9.Ne3 Be6 1 O.Nge2 N4d5 1 1 .0-0 Qd7 1 2 .Ng3 f5 ! 1 3.ef ef 1 4.Qh5 Qf7 1 5.Qf3 0-0-0 1 6.a4 a5 1 7.Nd5 Nd5 1 8.Bd2 Bb4 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

GM Nigel Short took the ce ntral idea of this line to it's logical conclusion when he

VOLUME D

187

6.e5 b4 7.ef be B.be ef 9.Be4

+-

ECO.

BUST

G M M i chael R h ode c a l l s 6 . e 5 t h e " p revio us" m a i n l i n e , stat i n g t h at i n E G O ' s f i n a l p o s i t i o n " . . . B l a c k h as e as y p l ay w i t h . . . Bd 6 , . . . N d 7 - b 6 , etc . " . H e is n o d o u bt correct, s i n ce i t ' s d i ff i c u l t to f i n d a re c e n t g a m e featu r i n g 6 . e5 . NOVELTY

The latest try to i m prove W h ite 's play f r o m t h e d i a g r a m i s 6 . B f4 , a s i n S h i rov- Kram n i k , Li nares 1 9 9 3 . T h at game went 6 . . . Q a5 7 . Bd2 { 7. e5 Ne4

8 . Nge2 Na 6 9 . f3 Nb4 ! 1 O . fe Nd3 1 1 . Kd2 g 6 ! 1 2. b3 Bg 7 1 3. bc Nf4 1 4 . Nf4 Be5 1 5. Nfe2 b4 1 6. Qa4 Oa4 1 7. Na4 Ba 1 - + was Gelfand-A nand, L inares 1 9 9 3 . In t h e n ex t ro u n d Belia vsky- Kamsky varied with 7. a4 ! ? Ne4 8. Nge2 Nd6 9.ab Ob6 oo) b4 8 . e5 be 9 . B c3 Q a 6 1 O . e f e f 1 1 . b3 B e ? 1 2 . Bc4 Q d 6 1 3 . N e 2 0 - 0 1 4 . 0 - 0 f5 1 5 . R e 1 N d 7 1 6 . N g3 g 6 1 7 . R e 7 ! Q e 7 1 8 .d6 Q h 4 1 9 . Qd5 R b 8 . N o w R h ode analyzes 20 . R e 1 Bb7 2 1 . Q d 2 ! Rfe 8 ! 22 . R e 7 R e 7 23 . de Q e 7 24 . Q h 6 Qf8 25 .Qf4 Q e7 ! , and Wh ite m ay h ave to take a draw. Not te rri b ly e n c o u rag i n g - at t h e m o m e n t W h ite is not faring well aga i nst 5 . . . b 5 .

Nb6 s.a4 as 6.Ne5 Nf6 7.Ne3 Nfd7 8.Ne4 g6 9.Bf4 e6 1 O.Qd2 Bg7 1 1 .Bh6 0-0 += ECO. NOVELTY

F ro m the diag ram m ed positio n B lack can p lay a n ew idea that m ay w e l l be an i m p rove m e n t ove r EGO's l i n e . A rec e n t g a m e went 4 . . . b5 ! ? 5 . a4 Bb7 6 .ab Be4 7 . Nc3 Bb7 8 . Bc4 e 6 9 .0 - 0 B d 6 1 O . Bg5 Ngf6 1 1 .Qe2 h 6 1 2 . B h4 0 - 0 1 3 . N e5 Nb6 1 4 . f4 B e ? 1 5 . Rad1 Nc4 1 6. Qc4 Nd5 1 7 . B e 7 Qe7 1 8. Rde1 a6 1 9 . Nc6 Bc6 2 0 . Qc6 Qb4 2 1 . N d5 ed 22 . b a Od4 23 . K h 1 Qb2 24 . R e7 Q a2 2 5 . Q c 7 R a6 2 6 .f5 Qf2 2 7 . Q c 1 Rc6 2 8 . Q a 1 Qd2 2 9 . f6 Rf6 3 0 . R d 1 Qf2 , 0 - 1 . SOURCE

SOURCE

Michael Rhode, "Game of the Month ," Chess Life, June 1 993, pp .28-29 .

Veh re- Bogdanovic, carr. 1 990.

024 note 27 021 line 4 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 de 3.Nf3 Nd7 4.e4

1 88

1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 de 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 s.d5 e6 6.e4 ed 7 .es Nfd7 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Be7 Qe7 1 0.Nd5 Qd8 1 1 .Qe2 ! ?

E.C.O. BUSTED!

SOURCE

Vasse r Seirawan, " Rotterdam World C u p , Part I I ," Inside Chess, Vol . 2 , No . 1 6 (August 1 4 , 1 989) , pp . 1 1 - 1 3 .

029 note 70 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 d e 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.Qe2 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9 . R d 1 N b d 7 1 0 . N c3 Qb8 1 1 .d5 ed 1 2 .e4 de 1 3 . N g 5 c4 1 4 . N ce4 Ne4 1 5 .Ne4 Qe5 1 6.Bc2 0-0-0 -+ ECO. N b6 1 2 . 0 -0-0 ! N d 5 1 3. B c 4 0-0 ! 1 4 .Bd5 Qe7 1 5.h4 += ECO. IMPROVEMENT

B l a c k c a n p l ay 1 1 . . . b 5 ! , a s i n Yusupov-Sei rawan , R otte rdam 1 9 8 9 which opens a tactical can o f wo rms. Wh ite attempts a direct refutation with 1 2 .Qe4, Seirawan g ives 1 2 . . . Bb7 1 3 .e6

If

( 1 3.Nf6? Qf6 1 4. Qb7 Qc6) Oa5 (not 1 3. . . 0 - 0 1 4 . 0 - 0- 0 ! [ 1 4 . e d Oa5 1 5. Kd1/Nd2 Bd5 1 6. Qd5 Nd7 with good compensation] ReB 15.ef!) 1 4 . Kd 1 fe ! 1 5 .Qe6 Kd8 1 6 . Ng5 Bd5 1 7 . Nf7 Kc7 1 8 .Qd6 Kb7 1 9 .Qd5 Nc6 20 .Qd7 Kb6 2 1 . Nd6 Rab8 , and states that " . .. B lack wo u ld appear to be q u ite h ealthy. " The above a n alys i s m e r e l y s u m m a rizes S e i rawan ' s com m e nts; th e i nterested reader should co n s u lt the so urce citation for detai led note s . Anyway, after 1 1 . . . b5 from the diagram , the bare game score goes : 1 2 .0-0-0 Bb7 1 3 . h 4 Bd5 1 4 . Rd5 Qe7 1 5 .Qe4 Nb6 1 6 .e6 f6 1 7 .h5 0-0 1 8 . N h 4 Nd5 1 9 . Nf5 Qc7 20 .0d5 Nc6 2 1 .Qc6 Of4 2 2 . N e3 Qf2 23. Nd5 O e 1 24 . Kc2 O e 4 25 . Kc 1 Q e 1 26.Kc2 O e4 2 7 . Kc1 , 1 /2 - 1 /2 . Seirawan's deep notes to thi s ga � e are simply amazing, and if at all poss1ble get a copy of the fo llowing issue of Inside Chess:

BUST

Let's l o o k a l i tt l e f u rth e r : Russian Chess Review continues with 1 7 . Be3 ! Be4 (not 1 7. . . f5 1 8. Bd4 Oe6 1 9.Ng3 Oe2

20.Ne2 Be4 2 1 . Be4 fe 22.a4 Bc5 23.ab ab 24. Ra5 + -) 1 8 . Bd4 Bd3 1 9 . Bd3 Qe2 {19 . . . Qd4 20.Bf5 +-) 20.Be2, and 2 1 .a4 with compensation . Also suggested is the i m m ediate 1 7 .a4 ! ? with the same evaluation , but no su pporting analysis. SOURCE

R C R 1 /278 .

VOLUME D

030 l ine 1

1 89

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cd ed 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Be7 Qe7 7 .de Nf6 8.Nc3 Qc5 9.Qd4 Oe7

After 6.Qc2

g5! 8. Be5 Rh6!, threatening 9 . . . Nd7 and . . .f6 or . . .g4 . If i nstead 7 .e3, then again 7 . . .g5! 8. Be5 f6 9. Bb8 Rb8 1 O.h4 (10.Qg6?! 1 0.Nd5 Nd5 1 1 .Qd5 Nc6 1 2.e3 0-0 1 3.a3 Rd8 with compensation -ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Wh ite needn't be i n such a hurry to grab the isola n i , but can play 1 O . e3 ! 0-0 (10 ... Nc6 1 1 .Bb5 and 1 2.Bc6 + =) 1 1 . Bb5 ! a6 1 2 . Ba4 Bg4 (12...b5 13. Bb3 +=, but

1 2. . . Bf5 1 3. 0-0 Be4 1 4.Ne5 + - was Cvetkovich-Milianic, Yugoslavia 1 992) 1 3 . N e5 + = . A n alysis by C vetkovich . Sometimes a lighter touch is preferable.

Kf8 followed by 1 1 ... Nh6, and if 12. Qh5 Bg4 with a draw) g4 ! , when attempts to plant a Kn ight on f4 are met by . . . Bd6. The actual g a m e (Seirawan-Agdestein, Olympiad 1 988) went 7.h3 ! g 6 8.e3 Bf5 9. Bd3 Bd3 1 O.Qd3 Nd7 1 1 .Nge2, and Seirawan gives 1 1 . . . Ngf6 1 2.0-0-0 Qa5 as best. SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vo l.2, N o . 1 (Jan uary 23, 1 989) , p . 1 4 .

031 note 49

SOURCE

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 de 5.Ne4 B b4 6.Bd2 Qd4 7 .Bb4 Qe4 8.Ne2 Nd7 9.Qd6 c5

Informant 55/401 .

031 line 23 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cd ed 5.Bf4 c6 6.Qc2 (diagram) g6 7.e3 Bf5 8.Qd2 Nf6 9.f3 c5 1 0.Bb5 Nc6 1 1 .dc Bc5 1 2.Na4 Be7 = ECO. NOVELTY

From the d i ag ra m B l ack can p l ay 6 . . . h5 !? , a move that looks strange but, quoting Sei rawan , "It certainly sidesteps all preparatio n and i m m ed i ately sets problems for White . . . . " Seirawan analyzes some of these problems as fo llows : 7.Nf3

1 90

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1 O.Bc5 Nc5 1 1 .Qc5 Bd7

=

ECO.

SOURCE

R C A 1 /279 .

IMPROVEMENT

Wh ite can play for more with 1 O . Bc3 ! , w h e n G . G e o rg ad z e - M at l ak , Warsaw 1 989 conti n ued 1 0 . . . Ngf6 1 1 . 0-0-0 Qc6 1 2 . Qg 3 R g 8 ( 1 2. . 0-0 ? 13.Rd7 Bd7 1 4 . Bf6 -Short) 1 3 . f3 K e 7 1 4 . N f4 b 6 1 5 . Nd3 Ba6 1 6. Ne5 N e 5 1 7 . Be5 Rad8 1 8 . Be2, 1 -0/33 . White kept control of the d a rk s q u a r e s u n t i l t h e e n d , w h i l e exploiting Black's King position. .

03 1 note 73 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 de 5.Ne4 Bb4 6.Bd2 Qd4 7.Bb4 Qe4 8.Be2 Na6 9.Bd6 e5 1 O.Qb3 Nf6

SOURCE

N i g e l S h o rt , " I n s i d e N e ws , " Inside Chess, Vol.3, No.7 (Apri l 1 6, 1 990) , p . 1 8.

031 note 65 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 de 5.Ne4 B b4 6.Bd2 Qd4 7.Bb4 Oe4 8.Be2 Na6 9.Bc3 Ne7 1 O.Bg7 Rg8 1 1 .Bc3 Nd5 1 2.cd Qg2 1 3.de Be6 1 4.Bf6 Rg6 1 5.Bh4 Qh1 1 6.Qd6 1 1 .Nf3 Nd7oo ECO. BUST

According to Yudovich it was Taimanov who proposed 1 O.Qb3 , but with the idea of playing 1 1 .Qg3 ! . I ndeed , after 1 1 .Qg3 ! i n the diagrammed position Black looks stuck for a move - he will lose his extra pawn {his only comfort against White 's po werful dark-squared Bishop} and be left with an inferior position. SOURCE

M . Yudovic h , Th e Gambit (Moscow: Planeta Publishers , 1 989) , p.1 49. Qg1 1 7 .Kd2 Qg5 1 8.Bg5 Rg5 1 9.Ke1 Rd8 oo ECO.

031 note 1 1 7

BUST

Black can clear things up in a h urry with 1 6. . . Rg5! -+ (1 7.0-0-0 Rc5 18. Kb 1 Qe4 -ed). Barring further discoveries, 1 O . Bg7(?!) is out of business.

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 de 5 .a4 Bb4 6.e3 b5 7 .Bd2 a5 8.ab Bc3 9.Bc3 cb 1 0. b3 Bb7 1 1 .bc b4 1 2.Bb2 Nf6 1 3.Bd3

VOLUME D

191

Nbd7 1 4.Qc2 0-0 1 5.e4 e5 1 6.0-0 Qc7 1 7 .Rfe1 Rfe8 1 8.c5 ed 1 9.Bd4

Ng4 20.Bc4 Nde5 21 .Ne5 Ne5 2 2.Bd5 +· ECO.

BUST

BUST

It turns out that Wh ite's "advantage" is built upon his respo nse to Black's faulty . . . Ng4-e5 man euver. For h is part Black h appe n s to h av e a u s e f u l move i n 1 9 . . . h 6 ! = + , w h e n N e v e rov- Kram n ik USSR 1 99 1 saw Wh ite pass with 20.h

3

(20. e5!? Nd5 2 1 . e6! Re6 22. Re6 te 23.Re 1 Nt4 24. Be4 ReB 25.Ne5 Be4! 26. Qe4 Nd5 = +) . T h e r e fo l l o w e d 20 . . . Bc6 2 1 .e5 N d5 22.e6! (Black can 't be allowed 22 . . . Nf8) Re6 2 3 . R e6 fe 24. Bh7 (24.Re 1 Nf4 25.Be4 Rf8 -+) Kh8 25 .Bg7 ! Kg? 26.Qg6 Kh8 27. Q h6 Nf8 28. Bf5 (28.Bg6 Kg8 29.Ng5 Be8) N h 7 29.Bh7 Qh7 30 .Qe6 N e 7 3 1 . Ne5 QgZ 32.g4, and afte r 32 . . . Bd5? ! Black wo n anyway o n move 4 0 . Better, however, was 32 . . . Be8 33.Rd1 a4 -+ . Notes based on Kramn ik's an notation s . SOURCE

Bl apk can . get a good position by playing the 1mmed1ate 9 ... Bb4 !, as in Pyshkin­ Raedeker, 5th I C C F Cup 1 982 , which conti n ued 1 0 . Bd2 d3 1 1 .a3 Qd4 ! 1 2 . ab Nb4 ! (Black can also experiment with

12. . . Qe4 13.Be3 Nb4 14.Nc3 [14.Kd2!?] Qe3! 15. te Ra t 1 6. Nb 1 Bt5! 1 7. Nf3 Nf6 1 8.Nfd2 Ng4 1 9. Qf3 Nc2 20.Kd 1 Nge3 2 1 . Kc 1 0-0 -Pyshkin) 1 3 . Bb4 Qe4 1 4 . Be2 Q b4 1 5 .Qd2 Qd2 1 6. Kd2 de 1 7 .N e2 RaG ! = 1 8 .Nd4 Ne7 1 9.Rhe1 Kd7 2 0 . R ac 1 R d 8 2 1 . R e 5 B b 7 2 2 . K e 1 , 1 /2-1 /2. oo

SOURCE

CYB 2/278 .

032 note 54 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cd ed S.dc Nf6 6.Be3 Nc6 7 .Nf3 Qa5 8.Nd2 Ng4 9.Nb3 Ne3 1 0.fe Qd8 (diagram) 1 1 .Qd5 Be6 1 2.Qe4 Be7 1 3.Nd4 0-0 1 4.0-0-0 Q a 5 1 5 . Ne6 f e 1 6 . g 3 Bf6 ! , w i th compensation -ECO.

Informant 53/387.

032 note 45 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cd ed S.dc d4 6.Na4 b5 7.cb ab 8.b3 Nc6 9.e4

1 92

b5 1 0. N b2 Bb4 1 1 .Bd2 Qa5 1 2.a4 Ba6 1 3. Nf3 Bd2 1 4 .Nd2 Nb4 1 5.Nd3 ! +· ECO.

BUST

E.C.O. BUSTED!

BUST

R ubinstein blu ndered o n the 1 9th move ( 1 -0124), no doubt accounting for EGO's evaluation . But consider Frank Marshall's own notes to the game, which continued 1 2 . . . Qc5 1 3 .h4 ( 1 3. 0-0 Qe7 =) Q e 7 1 4 .Ng5 (14.Bh 7? Kh7 15.Ng5 Kg6) h6 1 5 .Ne6 fe 1 6.Bb1 Bh4! 1 7.g3 Bg3 ! 1 8 .fg Qg5 1 9 . Qd3 N e5 ! (Rubinstein played 1 9. . . Qg3 ?), and according to Marshall Black has a wi nning attack, e.g. 20.Qh7 Kf7 21 . Rf1 Ke7 and Wh ite ru ns out of moves. Aher 1 0... 0d8

IMPROVEMENT

Wh ite can put the squeeze o n with 1 1 . g 3 ! , w h e n o n e g a m e co n t i n u e d 1 1 . . . Be6 1 2 . Bg2 Qg5 1 3 .e4 d4 1 4 .Nd5 Oe 5 1 5.Qd2 0-0-0 1 6. Nc1 Bc5 1 7.Nd3 Qd6 1 8 . Rc 1 Bb6 1 9 . e5 Qf8 20 .Nb6 ab 21 . Nb4 Bd7 22 .Qd4 b5 23.Na6 ! , 1 -0 . SOURCE

I n another M arshaii-Rubinstein game (Warsaw 1 908), White didn't allow the cou r s e a n a l y z e d above . F ro m t h e diagram Marshall played 8.e3 0-0 9 . Bd3 Bc5 1 O . Rc1 Nc6 1 1 .0-0 Be? 1 2.Bb1 Rc8 1 3 . a3 Qa5 1 4 .Qd3 g6 1 5 . Ba2 (+= Minev), 1 -0/44. SOURCE

Pyshkin-Shibaev, corr. USSR .

N i ko l ay M i n e v, " T h e Lost M atch : R u b i n s t e i n - M a r s h a I I , 1 9 0 8 , " Inside Chess, Vol . 1 , No .9 (May 4, 1 988) , pp.4-5.

032 note 62 1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cd ed 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.dc Be6

034 note 24 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cd ed 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7 .Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.b3 Bg4 1 O.dc Bc5 1 1 .Bb2 ReB 1 2.Rc1 ReB

8.Rc1 0-0 9.Bf6 Bf6 1 0.e3 Qa5 1 1 .a3 N c 6 1 2 . Bd3 + - ECO citing M arshaii­

Rubinstein , Lodz 1 908.

VOLUME D

1 93

1 3 . h 3 Bf3 1 4 . B f3 Bd4 1 5 .e3 Be5 1 6.Bg2 d4 ! = ECO. BUST

I n Che hov-Savchenko , Moskva 1 992 White played the straightforward 1 3 .Nd5 !. There followed 1 3 . . . Bf2 (13... Qd5 14.Qd5 Nd5 15.Rc5 Re2 16.Bg7 +-) 1 4 . Rf2 Nd5 1 5 .Ne5 Ne5 (15. . .Be6 1 6.Nc6 be 1 7.0d4 +-) 1 6. Rc8 Bc8 1 7.Qd5 Qc7 (1 7... Qd5

1 8.Bd5 RdB 19. e4 Nd3 20.Bf7 KfB 21.Ba3 ++ - Chehov) 1 8. Rf4 ! + - . Notes by GM M iles. In theory Black can sometimes give up his isolani for cou nterplay - but to have it stolen out from under his nose is another matter! SOURCE

Neg41 =) Qe5 1 5 . Bf6 (15. Bf4 ? 0f5 16.Bd6 Oft 1 7.Qf1 Bd6 -+; 1 5.e4 de [15. . . d4!? 1 6. Bf4 Qa5 1 7.fe fe, with compensation] 1 6. Bf4 Bc5! 1 7.Kh 1 Qf5oo) Bf6 1 6.fe fe 1 7. Kh 1 , Scherbakov gives 1 7 . . . b5 1 8 .Nc3 Rab 8 ! ? plan ning b5-b4 . Now Van der Sterren concludes that " ... it may not be so e as y fo r Wh ite to p ro v e a tan g ib l e advantage ." Notes by Scherbakov. SOURCE

N I C 25 , p.95.

034 note 205 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 cs 4.cd ed 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 cd 1 O.Nd4 h6 1 1 .Be3 Re8 1 2.Rc1 Bf8 1 3.Qa4 Bd7

Informant 55/406.

034 note 1 54 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cd ed 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c4 1 0.Ne5 Be6 1 1 .f4 Qb6 1 2.f5 Ne5 1 3.Na4

!1.;&%

¥� /. . .

' ..z

��

:r.;: """' /. . . . . . F.

Qa5 1 4.de Bd7 1 5 .ef gf 1 6.Bh6 +- ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

B lack can strengthen his p l ay with 13 . . . Qc7 as in Sche rbakov-Zelcic, B led 1 992. White still may be able to claim some sort of an edge , but after 1 4 .de (14.fe ?!

1 94

1 4.Rfd1 Na5 1 5.Qc2 Rc8

=

ECO.

B UST

I M Vince McCambridge o bserves that Wh ite can w i n a c l e a r pawn i n t h e diagram m ed position , e . g . 1 4.Nd5 Nd5 1 5 . Bd5 Nb4 1 6. Qb3 Nd5 1 7 .Qd5 Bh3 1 8 .Qd8 RedS 1 9 . Rfd1 . Let B lack think about that for a while ! SOURCE

Vince McCambridge, "Manila I nterzonal :

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Changing of the G uard," Chess Life, November 1 990, p.40.

SOURCE

Larry Parr, " Knight Moves in Greece ," Chess Life, February 1 989, pp.25,29.

034 n ote 232 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cd ed 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 B.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 cd 1 O.Nd4 h6 1 1 .Be3 ReB 1 2 .Qa4 Bd7 1 3.Rad1 Nb4 1 4.Qb3 as 1 5 .a4 BfB 1 6.Nc2

Be6 1 7 .Bd4 Ne4 1 B.Nb4 ab 1 9.Nb5 Qa5 20.Be4 de 21 .Qe3 Qa4 22.Nc7 Bb3 2 3 . R c1 B c 2 2 4 . Ne B R eB w i th compensation -ECO. IMPROVEMENT

A difficult position , and some propo nents of Black's system would prefer to see W h i t e be t h e o n e m ak i n g m at e r i a l i nvestments. I n the game Akh m ilovskaya­ Stanciu , T h essalon iki 1 98 8 , therefore, B l ack p l a y e d t h e d y n a m i c 1 6 . . . b 5 ! , leading to i m m ediate turmoi l . The game proceeded with 1 7.ab (1 7.Nb5 Bb5 18.ab

a4 19. 0c3 ReB -ed) a4 18. 0b4 (1 8.Na4 Bb5 1 9.Nb6 [1 9.Nc3 Bc4] Re3! 20.0e3 [20.fe Ob6 2 1 . Nb4 Ba4 or 21 ... Bc4 -++] Nc2 -Bisguier) Bb4 1 9 . Nb4. Now G M Bisguier recommends 1 9 . . . Re3 20.fe Be6, plann ing . . . Qb6, wh en " Black's position is prefe rable" .

035 note 1 09 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cd ed 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Nbd7 7 .Bd3 Bd6 B.Nge2 Nf3

9.Qc2 transposing to 8.Qc2 Nf8 9.Nge2 Ng6 etc., -ECO . IMPROVEMENT

W h i t e s h o u l d m a k e m o re t h a n a tran s po sitio n o u t of th i s s e q u e n c e , p l a y i n g i n s t e a d as i n S e i r a w a n ­ Lj u b o j e v i c , B a rce l o n a 1 9 8 9 . Afte r 8 . . . N f8 ( ? !) that game continued from the diagram with 9 .f3 ! Ng6 1 O.e4 de 1 1 .fe Be7 1 2 .0-0 0-0! (12. . . Ne4 1 3.Be7 Nc3

1 4 . Bd8 Nd 1 1 5. Ra d 1 Kd8 1 6. Rf7 - Se irawan) 1 3 . Q b 3 c5 1 4 . e 5 N g 4 1 5 . Bg6! hg 1 6 . Be7 Qe7. Now Sei rawan a n a l y z e s 1 7 . N d5 Q d 8 1 8 . h 3 B e 6 1 9 . N ef4 Bd5 20. Nd5 N h 6 2 1 .dc + - . SOURCE

Vasse r Sei rawan , " Barce lona World Cup," Inside Chess, Vol.2, No . 1 2 (June 26, 1 989) , pp . 1 0- 1 2.

VOLUME D

1 95

037 line 22 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 7 .de Bc5 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.a3 Qa5

Bas 1 2.Qc2 Nc6 1 3.e3 0-0 1 4.h4 g4 ECO .

+=

BUST

1 O.Nd2 Bb4 1 1 .cd ed 1 2 .Nb3 Bc3 1 3.bc Qa4 1 4.Bd3 b6 1 5.f3 Ba6 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

This line has evolved considerably in the last few years, and the te ndency has been toward ever- increasing complicatio ns. From th e diagram, co nsider the following m o d e r n i n te r p r e t at i o n of t h i s l i n e : 1 0 .0-0-0 Ne4 1 1 . N bS a6 1 2 .Nc7 e5 1 3 . Rd5 ! (Gelfand- Yusupov, Linares 1 992

went 13.Nd5 Nf2 14.Ng5 Bf5! 1 5. Qf2 et 1 6. Qf4 Nell 1 7.Ne7 Bel 1 8.Rd5 Oe 1 19.Rd1 , 112- 112) f5 1 4 . Re5 Ne5 1 5. Be5 Ra? 1 6 .Nd5 b6 1 7. Bd3 Bd7 1 8 .b4 Qa3 1 9 .Bb2 Qa4 20.bc be 21 . Ne5 Oc2 22. Bc2 Be6 23.Nf4, 1 -0. SOURCE

Kasparov-Vagan ian , European Team Ch . 1 992.

038 l ine 1 6

allow 12. . . Bd4, and 12.Bc7 Qel is equal) Na6! 1 3. Rc2 Bd4 1 4 .e3 Bg7 1 5 . Ba6 ba = . SOURCE

E d m ar M ed n i s , " O p e n i n g F o r u m , " Chess Lite, February 1 993, p.25.

038 note 1 69 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4 s.cd ed 6.Bg5 N bd7 7.e3 c5 8.Bd3 c4 9 . B c2 Qa5 1 0.0-0 Bc3 1 1 .bc Qc3? 1 2 . Q b 1 0-0 1 3 .e4 ! de 1 4. B d 2 Qa3 1 5 . B b4 Q a 6 1 6 . B f8 ef 1 7 . B b 4 fg 1 8.Re1 + · (diagram) ECO, citing Alekh ine.

BUST

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4 S.cd ed 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 Ne4 9.Nd2 Nc3 1 O.bc Bc3 1 1 . Rc1

1 96

G M M e d n is points out th at B l ack's wor r i e s in EGO's l i n e ste m from h is m isplaced dark Bishop, and that 1 1 . . . Bd4 i n the diagram fails to 1 2.Qa4 . However, Epis h i n-Sosonko, Ter Apel 1 992 saw B l ac k solve h is problems n icely with 1 1 . . . Bb2! 1 2. Rc7 (12.Rc2 and 12.Rb 1

Larry Parr, in a letter to Chess Life, notes that White's m ain "threat" can be parried, e .g . 1 8 . . . Qc6! 1 9 . Bh7 N h 7 20.Re8 Ndf8 2 1 .Qe1 Ng5 ! 22 . Rf8 Kh7 23.0e3 Nh3 2 4 . Q h 3 B h 3 25 . R a8 c3 , th reate n i ng

E.C.O. BUSTED!

ed 1 7 .es h6 1 8.0f4 Ne6 1 9.0f5 g6 20.0g4 +- ECO. BUST

I n s t e ad o f 1 6 . . . e d B l ack h as an i nte resting Queen sacrifice : 1 6 . . . Qd6! 1 7 . Qg 5 h 6 1 8 . Qg4 Rte8 1 9 . e5 Qd5 20.Bh7 Kh7 21 . Rd5 Bd5, when he has a solid position and material equilibrium tor the Quee n . SOURCE

Tomaszewski-Sequiera, Skien 1 979. After 1 8.Re1

26 . . . Qc4 and 2 7 . . . Qt1 . Another l ine is 1 8 . . . Qc6 1 9 .d5 Qd5 20.Bh7 N h 7 2 1 . Re8 Ndf8 22. Bf8 Nf6 ! , and Wh ite h as no move . I nterestingly, G M Evans relates that the move 21 . . . Ng5! was suggested in th e American Chess Bulletin, M arch 1 929 !

042 note 47 1 .d 4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e5 5.ed Nd5 6.e3 Ne6 7.Bd3 ed S.ed Be7 9.0-0 0-0 1 O.Re1 Ne3 H .be b6 1 2.Qe2 g6

SOURCE

Larry Evans, " Evans o n C hess," Chess Life, March 1 993, p . 1 4 .

041 note 1 28 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e5 s.ed Nd5 6.e4 Ne3 7 .be ed S.ed Bb4 9.Bd2 Bd2 1 0.0d2 0-0 1 1 .Be4 N e6 1 2.0-0 b6 1 3.Rad1 Bb7 1 4.Rfe1 ReS 1 5.d5 Na5 1 6.Bd3 1 3.Be4 Bb7 1 4.Qd2 Bf6 1 5 .Qh6 Bg7 1 6.0h3 += ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Wh ite recogn izes that his play should be aimed at the opposing King, but a much m o re d irect method is 1 3 .h4!, simply plann ing 1 4 .h5, 1 5 .hg and 1 6.Bh6. The h-pawn is imm u ne because of 1 3 ... Bh4? 1 4 . Bb5 Bb7 1 5.Qe4 ++-, so there remain two defe nces :

VOLUME D

1 97

1 } 1 3 . . . Bb7 1 4 .h5 Bf6 1 5 . hg hg 1 6 . Bg6 fg 1 7 . Qg6 Kh8 ( 1 7.. . Bg7 1 8. Ng5 Rf6

1 9.Qh7 Kf8 20. Ba3 Ne7 2 1 . Re6 + + -) 1 8 . R e 6 ! ? , fo l l owed by 1 9 . B g5 Bg5 20 .Qh5 Kg8 21 .Rg6 ++- , and 2) 1 3 . . . Bf6 1 4 .h5 Bg7 1 5 . hg hg 1 6. Ng5 and 1 7 . Bg6 + - , with a stro ng attack. Analysis by Winants.

044 note 1 07 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 de 6.e4 b5 7 .e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Ng5 hg 1 0 .Bg5 Nbd7 1 1 .g3 Qa5 1 2.ef b4 1 3. Ne4 Ba6 1 4.b3 0-0-0 1 5.Qe2 Nb6 1 6.Be3

SOURCE

Informant 56/466.

044 note 83 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4 .Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 de 6.e4 b5 7 .e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Ng5 hg 1 O.Bg5 Nbd7 1 1 .Be2 Bb7

Kb7 1 7.Re1 Ka8 1 8.Be2 Bb7 1 9.0-0 Qf5 20.h4 Bh6 21 .Ne5 Qh3oo ECO. BUST

1 2 .0-0 Qa5 1 3.ef 0-0-0 1 4.Bf3 Ne5 1 5 .Be4 b4 -+ ECO. IMPROVEMENT

1 1 . Be2 can't be a bad move in itself; see , for example , line 24 of this section (which

suggests that 14.a4!? instead of 1 4. Bf3 may be indicated). I n any case, the fault must lie with Wh ite's follow-up. F rom the d i ag r a m 1 2 . B f3 Q a5 1 3 . e f 0 - 0 - 0 1 4 .Qc1 oo is interesting. One rece nt game continued 1 4 . . . e5 1 5 . Be3 ed 1 6. Bd4 Bh6 1 7 .Qc2 Rhe8 1 8 . Kf 1 c5 1 9 . Bb7 Kb7 20. Be3 Be3 2 1 .feoo, 1 -0/37 . SOURCE

Weinberg-Strauss, Las Vegas 1 990.

1 98

Black can proceed much more stro ngly with 1 6 . . . e5!, as in Pan man-Noomen, carr. 1 989·90. That game went 1 7 .0-0-0 Bh6 1 8 . K b 1 B e 3 1 9 .fe N d 5 2 0 . Q f2 ( - + according to Noomen) ed 21 .ed cb 22 .ab R he8 (threatening both 23. . . Re4 and 23. . . Nc3) 23.Rc1 Re4 24.Rc6 Kb7 25.Ra6 Nc3 26.Kc1 {26.Kc2 Oc7 27. Bc4 Re2 28.Be2 Ne4 -++) Qg5 27.Qd2 (27.Kc2 Red4) Qf5 ! , 0-1 in view of 28. Bd3 Rdd4 followed by 29 . . . Rd3 3 0 . Qd3 R e 1 , while 29. Be4 is m et by 29 . . . Qe4. Notes based o n annotations by CYB's editorial staff. SOURCE

CYB 2/285 .

044 note 1 50 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 de 6.e4 b5 7 .e5 h6 8 .Bh4 g5 9.Ng5 hg 1 O.Bg5 Nbd7 1 1 .ef Bb7 1 2 .g3 Qb6

E.C.O. BUSTED !

1 3 .Bg2 c5 1 4 .d5 0-0-0 1 5 .0-0 b4 1 6.Na4 Qb5 1 7.a3 Nb8 1 8.ab cb 1 9.0g4 Bd5 20.Rfc1 Nd7

3 1 . Be3 Rdd5 32. Rc5 Rc5 33. Rc5 Rc5 34. Bc5 Kc5 35 .h5 . SOURCE

Informant 54/427

046 note 46 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.e3 N bd7 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.Qc2 de 9.Bc4 e5 1 O.h3

21 . Bd5 ed 22.Be3 Bd6 23. Ba7 Kb7 24.Bd4 Ra8 25.Qd1 R hc8oo ECO.

Yes, Virg inia, this is all "theo ry"; meaning that it's part of a game G M 's deem to represent best p l ay as of y e ste rday even ing . BUST

I n the case of the gam e fragment EGO cites h e r e , however, Wh ite kept h a m m e r i n g aw ay at B l a c k ' s t i m e ­ consum ing Knight man euvers until, over time, th e knockout blow was discovered. M age rramov-Savce n ko , St. Petersburg 1 9 92 d ive rged from the diag ram with 21 .Qf4! Nc5 (the only move, as 21 ... Nb6

22.Nb6 Ob6 23. Rc4 Bc4 24.0c4 walks into a deadly attack, while 2 1 . . . Bg2 22. Qc4 Qc4 23.Rc4 Kb7 24.Kg2 leaves White a won endgame, and 21 . . . Qc6 22. Rc4 Oc4 23. Rc 1 Oc t 24. 0c 1 Kb 7 25.Bd5 ed 26.Bf4 ReB 27. 0d 1 is also u n te n able fo r Black) 2 2 . N c5 Bc5 (22. . . 0c5 23. Qg4 Rd7! 24. Be3 Qc6 25.Bd5 ed 26.Ra7) 23 . Bf1 Kb7 24.Bc4 Bc4 25 . Rc4 Rd5 26.0e4 a5 27. Rac1 Oc6 (27... Bd6 28. Bf4, or 27.. .Bb6 28. Be3, and White penetrates in either case) 28 . h4 R hd8 29.Kg2, 1 -0 . Comments based on Magerramov's notes, who analyzes the l ikely con clusion 29 . . . Re5 30 .0c6 Kc6

ed 1 1 .ed Nb6 1 2.Bb3 Nbd5 !?

+=

ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

B l ack d o e s n ' t have to re lease the ten sion with 1 O . . ed until he's prepared - if at a l l . Bette r is 1 0 . . . Qe7 ! 1 1 . a3 Bc7 transposing to Stohl-Rogers, Brno 1 99 1 , which went 1 2 . Ba2 h6 1 3 . N h4 ReB (or .

13. . . ed 1 4.Nf5 Qe5 15. f4 OeB 16.Nd4) 1 4 . Nf5 Qf8 1 5 .d5 (15.Nb5 BbB 16.Bd2 a5 1 7.de Re5! 18.Nc3 Nc5 -Anand) e4 ! 1 6.dc be 1 7 .Nb5 Bb8! 1 8.Qc6 Ne5 1 9.Qa8 Bf5. Now Stohl gives 20 .Nd4 Bd7 ! 2 1 .Qb7 Qd6 22.0b4 Qc7 23 .0c3 Qd6 24.Qb4 with r e p etition , o r 20 . . . B h3 1 ? 2 1 . g h Qd6 22. Kg2 ! Ng6 23 . R h 1 N h4 24 . Kg1 Nf3 25 . Kg2, again with repetition (not 25.Nf3 Od1 26. Ne 1 Bh2 27.Kh2 RaB 28.Ng2 Oe2).

VOLUME D

1 99

SOURCE

In side C h ess, Vo 1 . 4 , ( December 23, 1 991 ) , p.25.

N o . 25 - 2 6

and won anyway on move 40. There's lots of room for n ew ideas h e re ! SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vo l . 4 , No . 1 3 (July 8 , 1 991 ) , pp.9- 1 0.

047 note 51 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Ne3 e 6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 de 7.Be4 b5 8.Bd3 b4 9.Na4 e5 1 0.e4? ! ed

048 li ne 1 0 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 N bd7 6.Bd3 de 7.Be4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 e5 1 0.d5 e4 1 1 .de ed

1 1 .e5 Nd5 1 2 .0-0 Be7! 1 3. Re1 0-0 1 4 .Nd4 Qe7 1 5 .Qh5 g6 1 6.Qe2 B b7 1 7.Bh6 Rfe8 1 8.Ba6 Ba6 1 9.Qa6 Qe4 = + ECO. IMPROVEMENT

How about an i nteresting sacrificial idea? Wells-Conqu est, London 1 99 1 went 1 1 . Bb5 Qa5 1 2 . Bc6 R b8 1 3 .0-0 e5 ! 1 4 .Bf4! Bd6 {14 ... ef 15. e5 Nd5 16.Nd4! Ne7 [1 6. . . Be 7 1 7.Nb3] 1 7. Re 1) 1 5. BQ3 Be7 (15. . . 0-0 [Suba] 1 6.Nd4 Qc 7 1 7. Nf5

Oc6 1 8.Rc1 Oe4 [ 1 8 . . . Bc5 1 9. Ne 7] 19.Nd6 Qd5 20. Qd5 Nd5 2 1 . Rfd 1 , or 19... Qg4 [19... Qa8 -Watson] 20. Qg4 Ng4 21.Rfd1) 1 6 . Rc 1 0-0 1 7. b3 Rd8 1 8. Bd7 Nd7 1 9.Nd4! Nf6 20 .Nc6 Rd1 2 1 . Rfd1 Qb5 2 2 . Nb8 BQ4 (22. . . Qb8 23.Be5!) 23.Rc7 Bd1 24. Rc8 Ne8 25.Nc6 h5, and now 26.Re8 Kh7 2 7.Rd8 Qc6 2 8.Rd1 Qc2 29 .Re1 Qa2 30.Be5 Qb3oo was White 's best course (notes based on comments by Tisdall). As it was, he played 26.h4 ?!

200

1 2 .ed Qd7 1 3.Ne5 Qe6 1 4.Nd3 Bb7 1 5 . 0 - 0 Rd8 1 6. Qf3 Ne4 1 7. Re1 f5 1 8.8g5 Rd7 + = ECO. NOVELTY

1 2 . ef!? was introduced in the game S ei rawa n - Ko rtc h n o i , Barce lona 1 98 9 . T h e f u l l i m pl ications of White's piece sacrifice h aven 't been worked out yet, but current investigations reveal the following: 1 2 .ef Kf7 1 3 .e5 Qe7 1 4 . Ng5 (14.8!4 Nb6! 1 5. Ng5 KgB 1 6. Qd3oo - Varnus) K e 8 1 5 . 0 - 0 { 1 5. !4 ? N e 5 1 6. 0- 0 Oa 7 -Kortchnoi) N e5 1 6. R e 1 h6 1 7. Nge4 N e4 1 8 .N e4 Bg4 1 9 .f3 Be6, and now 20.Nf2 N c 6 2 1 . Q d 3 o r 2 1 . N d 3 i s u n cl e a r acco rding to Kortchnoi . SOURCE

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Egon Varn us, Semi-Siawisch (Mann heim : Schachverlag R e i n h o ld Dreier, 1 992 ) , p. 1 1 1 .

D48 1ine 1 3 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 de 7.Be4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 e5 1 O.d5 c4 1 1 .de ed 1 2.ed Qd7 1 3.0-0 Bb7 1 4.Re1 Be7 1 5.e5 Nd5 1 6.Ne4 0-0 1 7.Qd3 Qg4 1 8.Ng3

(24 . . . Be4 25. Bc5! Rd3 26. 0d3 Bd3 27.Be7 gives White the initiative) 25. Bc5! and White offered a draw, 1 /2-1 /2 . One possible continuation is 25 . . . Bb3 26.ab Bc5 27 .Nc5 and 28.e6. Notes based on Chernin's an notations. SOURCE

Informant 54/440.

048 note 1 1 .d4 d5 2 .e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 de 7 .Bc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.0-0 Bb7 1 0.e4 es

Nb4

+=

ECO.

IMPROVEMENT

U nless you're a big fan of the Meran variation Black's gambit can be rather deceptive. In th is line he aims at tactics based o n K n ig ht forks at c2 (EGO's

18. . . Nb4 is a blunt example, but White parries easily enough), combined . � ith strikes at the e ne my castled pos1t1on . I nstead of 1 8 . . . N b4 Black kept his powder d r y w i t h 1 8 . . .f5 ! i n H a n s e n - C h e rn i n , Taastrup 1 9 9 2 . T h e g a m e conti n u e d 1 9 . Bd2 (the firs t poin t o f Black 's refinement is revealed after 1 9. ef Bf6 20.h3 Nb4, when his pieces seem to be everywhere) Rad8 20 . Qb3 Kh8 2 1 . h 3 Og6 22.Rac1 ! (22.Kh2 Bc5, or 22.Rad1 f4 23.Nf1 Ne3! -keep an eye on Black's f-pawn) f4 23.Ne4 (again, 23.Nf1 Ne3, or 23.Ne2 Ne3 24.Nf4 Rf4 25.Re3 Rd2 26.Rc7 Bd5 is decisive) Ne3 24 . Be3 Bd5

H ere ECO and oth er opening manuals exam ine only 1 1 .d5 , but Koploy-Strauss, Los Angeles 1 990 featured an aggressive new try for White: NOVELTY

1 1 .e5 Nd5 1 2 . Ng5 (threatening 13.Ne6 and 14.0h5) Be7 1 3 .Qh5 g6. Now I M Jack Pete rs analyzes 1 4.Qh6 Bf8 1 5 . Ne6 Bh6 1 6. Nd8 Bc1 1 7.Nb7 Nf4=; or 1 4 .Qh6 Nc3 1 5 . N e6 (15.bc Ne5) Ob6 1 6.Ng7 Kd8 1 7.bc cd 1 8 . Bf4, and the drafty position of Black's King is a sou rce of worry. All told, 1 1 . e 5 s e e m s to b e w o r t h f u rt h e r investigatio n . SOURCE

VOLUME D

201

J o h n H i l l e ry , " S o uth e r n C a l i fo r n i a Champio nship," Chess L ife, J a n u ary 1 991 , p.49 . I ncidentally, after 1 1 .d5 ECO gives a long, complex l i n e begi n n i ng 1 1 . . . ed 1 2 .ed B e ? 1 3 . B b5 e tc . , a n d eventually + = . But White keeps a n ice edge with the sim ple 1 3 . Bf4 , th reatening 1 4 .d6 - Informant 54/438 .

048 note 69 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5 .e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 de 7.Be4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 e5 1 O.d5 e4 1 1 .de ed 1 2.ed Qd7 1 3.0-0 Bb7 1 4.Re1 Be7 1 5.e5 Nd5 1 6.Ne4 0-0 1 7.Qd3 h6? 1 8.Bd2

SOURCE

Ego n Var n u s , Semi-Siawisch 1: Die M e ra n e r Verte idig u ng (Man n h e i m : R e i n ho ld Dreier, 1 992) , p . 1 1 5 .

D49 1i ne 3 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 de 7.Be4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 e5 1 O.e5 cd 1 1 .Nb5 Ng4 1 2.Qa4 Rb8 1 3.Nd6 Bd6 1 4 .ed Qb6 1 5 .Qd4

Qd4 1 6.Nd4 R b6 1 7.b3 Rd6 1 8.Bb2 0-0 1 9.Be2 +· ECO. BUST Qe6 1 9.Nd4 Qe5 20.Ng5

++·

ECO.

BUST

1 7 . . . h6 is a decent move; it's 1 8 . . . Qe6(?) that stinks. Barbero gives 1 7 . . . h6! 1 8 . Bd2 Rad8 !oo. IMPROVEMENT

I n stead of 1 8 . Bd 2 , M ar i n - B arbe ro , Thessaloniki 1 988 contin ued fro m the diagram with 1 8 . Ng3 ! Rad8 1 9 .e6!? fe 20 .Bh6, when Barbero analyzes 20 . . . Rf3 ! 2 1 .gf g h 22.Qg6 Kf8 23.Qh6 (23.Re6?! Bg5!) Kf7 24.Qh7 Kf8 and White can take a perpetual o r play 25.Nh5 Bf6 with equal chances.

202

I n stead of 1 5 . . . Qd4 Black wins with 1 5 . . . Nde5!, when White can resign. See Don aldso n -O' Donnell, Vanco uver 1 989 and Pogorelov-Moroz, USSR 1 988 for examples of this trap i n actio n . IMPROVEMENT

Obviously White can 't play 1 5.Qd4 ??, but shou ld co ntinue with 1 5.h3 (or 15.0-0

Qd6 1 6. Qd4 Qd4 1 7.Nd4 -Donaldson) Ngf6 1 6.Qd4 Qd4 1 7 .Nd4 Rb6 1 8 . N b3 Rd6 1 9 . Be2 0-0 20 0 - 0 Nd5 2 1 . Bd2 Ne5 22. Rfd 1 + = , as in Tukmakov- Horvath , Sochi 1 987. .

SOURCE

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Joh n Don aldso n , " 1 990 U .S . Open , " Inside Chess, Vol.3, N o. 1 8 (Septe m ber 1 7 , 1 990) p .2 1 .

049 li ne 1 0 1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 de 7.Be4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 e5 1 O.e5 ed 1 1 . N bS Ne5 1 2 .Ne5 a b 1 3.Bb5 Bd7 1 4.Nd7 Qa5 1 5.Bd2 Qb5 1 6.Nf8 Kf8

049 note 2 1 .d4 d5 2 .e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 N bd7 6.Bd3 de 7.Be4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 e5 1 0.e5 ed 1 1 .Nb5 Ng4 1 2 .Nd6 Bd6 1 3.ed

Ne5oo ECO. IMPROVEMENT

1 7 .a4 O b2 1 8 .0-0 N e4 1 9 .Qf3 f5 2 0 . B f 4 Q e 3 2 1 . Q h 5 Q e 6 , with compensation -ECO. IMPROVEMENT

I n stead of 1 7 .a4, White should play 1 7 .b3 ! . Now Qu ist- H andel, corr. 1 988-90 went 1 7 . . . Rb8 (1 7... Ke7?! lost badly in

Timman-Nogueiras, Lucerne 1 989, so Handel suggests 1 7. . . Nd5 1 8.a4 Qd3=. If someone can find an advantage for White here we can upgrade this entry to a "bust") 1 8 . b 4 ! N d 5 1 9 . a4 O d 3 2 0 . b 5 Q e 4 (20. . . Nc3 2 1 . Bc3 Qc3 22.Kf1 Ke7 23.h4 and 24. Rh3) 2 1 . Kf1 d3 22.h4 Ke7 23. R h3 R hd8 (23. . . Rhc8 24. 0f3 Oe5 25.Ra3 +-) 24 . Rg3 N f6 . Now 25.b6! wou ld leave Wh ite with a clear advantage (co m ments based o n notes by Handel) . SOURCE

CYB 2/288 .

I n stead of 1 3 . . . Nc5 , B lack looks to gain t h e e d g e w i t h 1 3 . . . Q a 5 ! as i n C ivitan-Cherni n , Debrecen 1 992. There fo l lo wed 1 4 . Bd2 Qd5 1 5 .0-0 Nge5 ! 1 6 . N e 5 N e 5 1 7 . Bf4 Bb7 1 8 . f3 Nd3 1 9 . 0d3 0-0 =+ 20. Rfe 1 f6 2 1 .Qa3 Rfd8 2 2 . R ac1 e5 23 . Rc7 Bc6 24.Bd2 Od6. Now White cou ld have kept the damage to a m i n i m u m with 25.Qd6 ! Rd6 26 .f4 ! e4 2 7 . B b4 Rad8 2 8 . Bd6 Rd6 29 . Rc6 !? Rc6 3 0 . R e 4 Rc1 3 1 . Kf2 Rc2 32 . Kf3 Rb2 33. Rd4 = + . Notes based on those of C h e rn i n . SOURCE

Informant 56/506.

050 note 40 1 .d4 d5 2 .e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Bg5 e5 s.ed ed 6.Qd4 Be7 7.e4 Ne6 8.Qd2 ed 9.Bf6 Bf6 1 0.ed

VOLUME D

203

Nb4 1 1 .Bb5 Bd7 1 2 .Bd7 Qd7 1 3.Nge2 +- ECO. BUST

In the diagrammed position Black has the logical 1 O . . .Qe7! , as in Panczyk- S.lvanov, Mikolajki 1 991 . That game continued, with notes based on those of Ivanov: 1 1 .Qe3

(1 1 . 0e2 Nb4 12.0e7 Ke7 with a Black initiative; 1 1.Be2 Nd4 12.Kf1 0-0 13.Nf3 Ne2 14.0e2 Qc5 with compensation; 1 1.Nge2!? Nb4 12.d6 Oe5>o) Nb4 1 2. Bb5 Bd7 (12... Kd8!? 13.Kd2 Oe3! 14.fe Bc3 15.Kc3 Nd5 =) 1 3.Bd7 (Tatai-De Blasia, Chianciano Terme 1986 was agreed drawn after 13.0e 7 Ke 7 14.Bd7 Kd7 15.Rd1 RheB 16.Nge2 Bc3 1 7.bc RacB 1B.cb Rc2) Kd7 1 4.Qe7 Ke7 1 5. Rd1 Bc3 1 6.bc Na2 1 7.Ne2 Rac8 1 8. Rd3 b5 1 9 . Kd2 b4 20.c4! Rc4 21 .Ra1 b3 (21 ...Nc3 22.Ra7 Kd6 23.Rf7 Ne4.oo). We'll leave this interesting game now, which Black won in 43 moves, but for the complete score see the citation below.

W h i te ' s advan tage i n creases after 1 5 . Bb3 !, keeping his Bishop on a more a g g r e s s i v e d i ag o n a l . I n M a t l ak ­ S w i e rcz y n s k i , c o r r . 1 9 9 0 - 9 1 t h e r e followed 1 5 . . . Qe7 1 6.h3 h6 1 7.Bh4 Kh8 (planning 1 B. . . Ng6) 1 8 . Nf5 ! Bf5 1 9 .Qf5 Ng6 ( 1 9. . . Ned7 20.Rad1 Rad8 21.Rd4 + -) 20. Bf6 gf 2 1 . Rad1 Rad8 22. Rd4 . Now, instead of 22 . . . Rd4?! 23.cd + + - (1-0/34), M at l ak g i ve s 2 2 . . . c5 ! ? 2 3 . Rd 5 Rd5 24 . Bd5 b6 25.c4 + - . SOURCE CYB 5/246.

052 note 1 0 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 N bd7 5 .e3 c6 6.Nf3 Qa5 7.cd Ne4 8.de fe 9.Qa4 Qa4 1 0.Na4 Bb4 1 1 .Ke2 b5 1 2.a3 Ng5 1 3.Ng5 Be7 1 4.Ne6 ba 1 5.Nc7 Kd8 1 6.Na8 Bb7 1 7.e4 c5oo ECO. CORRECTION

SOURCE

NIC 26, p.96.

052 line 8 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 N bd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Qa5 7.Nd2 Bb4 8.Qc2 0-0 9.Be2 e5 1 0.0-0 ed 1 1 . Nb3 Qc7 1 2.Nd4 de 1 3.Bc4 Bc3 1 4.bc Ne5 (diagram) 1 5 .Be2 Qe7 1 6 .Rad1 h6 1 7 .Bf6 Qf6 1 8.h3 + = ECO.

204

IMPROVEMENT

A d iffe r e n ce o f o p i n i o n . G M Pol ugayevski contends that White has a clear advantage after 1 7 . . .c5, noting that his Rooks will be connected i n three or fou r moves . White will then attack in the cente r and on the Oueenside . SOURCE

Lev Po l u gayevski, Queen 's Gambit: Orthodox Defence ( Le i pz i g : Batsfo rd, 1 988) ' p.223 .

E.C.O. BUSTED !

055 note 81 1 .d4 d 5 2 .e4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 h6 7 .Bf6 Bf6 8.Qb3 de 9.Qe4

1 7 . N b5 Od8 1 8.0-0 Nd7 !?, without co m m ent or evaluation -ECO. BUST

b6 1 0.0-0-0 Ba6 1 1 .Qa4 Bf1 1 2.R hf1 Qe7 1 3.Ne4 Re8 1 4.Kb1 +- ECO. BUST

Black's play lacked directio n , so . it's no surprise that a path to clear equality has b e e n fo u n d . F r o m t h e d i ag r a m H e rbert-Sta l l , ca rr. 1 985-89 (notes by Stoll) went 9 . . . a6! 1 O . Ne4 Be7 1 1 . Bd3 b5 1 2 .0c2 Nd7 1 3 .a3 (13.Qc6 ? Rb8 and 14 . . .Bb7) Bb7 1 4 .b4 (otherwise . . . ReB, ... c5 -) a5! 1 5 . Rb1 ab 1 6 .ab Be4 1 7 . Be4 Ra4 1 8 . Ke2 R b4 1 9 . Rb4 Bb4 20.Rb1 Oe7 21 . Bh7 Kh8 22. Bd3 c5 23.Bb5 , 1 /2- 1 /2 . SOURCE

D . L . S to l l , " B e r n a rd F re ed m a n M e m o r i a l , " Fernschach International, March 1 992, p . 1 36a.

ECO gives 1 8 . . . Nd7!? in lieu of 1 8 . . . a6?! 1 9 .Na3 +=, but Black will have to look e a r l i e r fo r i m p r o v e m e n t s . I n t h e d i agram m ed positio n Wh ite can play 1 7 . Nd 1 ! , and if 1 7 . . . Qd2 1 8 . Kd2 Nd7 1 9. Rc1 ! Ba4 (Black fared even worse after

1 9 . . . Rac8 20. Ba6 Rc7 2 1 . Ne3 Nb8 22. Be2 Rb7 23. Rb 1 RdB 24.Bf3 Na6 25. Rb 7 Bb 7 in Chernin-Belia vsky, Debrecen 1 992, when White could have wound up with 26. Rb 1 ! Bc6 27.Rc 1 Bb7 28.Rc3 followed by Ra3 and Ra5 ++-) 2 0 . N b 2 Nb6 2 1 . N a4 Na4 22.Bb5 + - . The refore Chernin considers Black's best after 1 7.Nd1 ! to be 1 7 . . . 0d8, but Wh ite still h as th e clear plan of 1 8 .0-0, 1 9.Ne3, 2 0 . B f3 and 2 1 . Rfc 1 + - . An alysis by C hernin. SOURCE

Informant 56/51 6.

058 note 1 1 1

058 note 87 1 .d4 d5 2 . c4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.Be2 Bb7 9.Bf6 Bf6 1 O.ed ed 1 1 .b4 es 1 2.bc be 1 3 .Rb1 Qa5 1 4.Qd2 ed 1 5 . Nd4 Bd4 1 6.ed Be6

1 .d4 d5 2 .e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 h6 7 .Bh4 b6 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.0-0 e5 1 O.dc be !?

VOLUME D

205

After 18.h3

Given by ECO without com m ent. CORRECTION

We now have some evidence based on the game Dautov- Boensch , Brno 1 99 1 , which continued 1 1 . Rc1 N bd7 1 2.cd ed 1 3 .Qe2 Ne4 (13. . . Re8!?) 1 4 . Be7 Qe7 1 5 . Ba6 ( 1 5.Be4 ?! de 16. Nd2 f5 gives Black an initiative) N df6 1 6 . N e4 N e 4 1 7.Rfd1 Rfd8 = 1 8 . Rc2 Ba6 1 9 .Qa6 Rd6 2 0 . Q e 2 R a d 8 2 1 . N e 1 ! ? (planning Nd3-f4). Now 21 . . . Qb7 !?, trying for . . . d4 or . . . c4 wo u l d h ave b e e n i n te resti n g . Anyway, an assessment of "dynam ically equal" seems in order (notes based on

a ttack) Nd3 2 1 . Bd3 cd 22. Nf3 Rab8 23. Ne5? Rb2 24.Ng4 d2 -+) we have 1 9. . .0g5 20.Kh 1 Qh4 2 1 . Nf3 (21 . Kh2 Qf4 22.Kg2 Qg5 23.Kh 1 Qh4 =) Qh3 22.Nh2 Rab8 23.b3!? (23.Rg1 !? may also be good enough for equality) cb 24.ab Rb3 25.f3 R b2 26.Rc2 Rfb8 27. Ba2 Rc2 28.Qc2 d3 29.0c3 ReB 30.Qe5 Rc2 3 1 . R g 1 Rh2! 32.0h2 Qf3, 1 /2- 1 /2 . Gatto- David , carr. 1 991 , with notes based on those of David. SOURCE

CYB 3/297.

066 note 23

those in Russian Chess Review). SOURCE

1 .d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 N bd7 7.Re1 e6 8.Bd3 h6 9.Bh4 de 1 O.Be4 b5 1 1 .Bd3 a6 1 2 .a4 ba 1 3.Na4 Qa5 1 4.Nd2 e5? 1 5.de

RCR 1 /31 2.

059 note 72 1 .d4 d5 2 .e4 e6 3.Ne3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 h6 7 .Bh4 b6 8.ed Nd5 9 . Be7 Oe7 1 0. Nd 5 ed 1 1 .Re1 Be6 1 2.Bd3 es 1 3.de be 1 4.0-0 Nd7 1 5 .e4 d4 1 6 . Nd2 Ne5 1 7 . B b1 e4 1 8 . h 3 (diagram) Qb4 1 9.f4 +- ECO. BUST

The following game indicates that Black can save t h e s i t u at i o n b y p l ay i n g 1 8 . . . Bh3 ! , and after 1 9 .gh (19.f4 Bg4

20.Qe1 [20.Qa4 Bd7 21.Qa6 Ng4 with an

206

E.C.O. BUSTED!

NcS 1 6.NcS BcS 1 7 .Bf6 gf 1 8.Cg4 Kh8 1 9.Ce4 + +- ECO. BUST

Atan asiu- Popescu , carr. 1 990 diverged from the diagram with 1 5 . . . Ne5 ! , and afte r 1 6 . Bc2 Rd8 1 7. Bg3 Nd3 1 8 . Bd3 Rd3 1 9 . Nc3 Qc5 20.Qe2?! Wh ite lost i n 29 moves. B ut even the superior 20 .Qc2 Rd? 2 1 .0-0 Bb7 is slightly better for B lack, according to Popescu. SOURCE

CYB 4/296 .

1 8. Bb7 [or 18.e6], as well as 14... Nc6 15. 0-0-0 Kc7 16.Nd5 KbB 1 7.b5 Na5 1 8.Ne3 Be6 1 9.Bd5 are both good tor White) 1 3.0d8 Kd8 1 4 .bc Be5 1 5. Ne2 Nd? 1 6 .0-0 a6 1 7. Rfd1 Kc7 (1 7... Rb8!? 1 8. Ra5 Bel [1 8... Bg7 1 9.Bf4 RaB 20.b5] 1 9. Ra2 e6 [19. . . Be5 20.b5 Kc7 21.c4] 20 .c4 Ke 7 2 1 .b5 or 2 1 .Nc3, and White has good compensation) 1 8 .Nf4 Bf4?, 1 -0/43 . Black's best chance was 1 8 . . . e6 1 9.Ra5 Bg? 20 .b5 (20.c4) b6 (20... Rb8 21.b6 Nb6 22.Rc5#) 2 1 . R a2 Ra?oo. Notes based on annotations by I M Stohl. SOURCE

Igo r Sto h l , "Soviets Win in Trnava," Inside Chess, Vo l . 2 , No. 1 1 (June 1 2 , 1 9 89), pp.28-29 .

071 note 64 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d5 s.cd NdS 6.e4 Nb4 7 .ds c6 a.a3 cas 9.Nc3 cd 1 O.Be3 d4 1 1 .ab Cd8

082 note 1 3 1 .d 4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 dS 4.Bf4 Bg7 s.e3 cs 6.dc Cas 7.Ca4 Ca4 8.Na4 Na6 9.cd NdS

1 2.Bd4 Bd4 1 3.Nge2 Bb6 1 4.0-0 0-0 1 S.Cd8 Bd8 1 6.Rfc1 N c6 1 7 .bS N b4 1 8.Nf4 e6 1 9.Bf1 aS 20.ba ba 21 . Na4 Rb8 = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

With 1 2 .e5! Wh ite g ets Q ueenside pressure and a lead in development for his pawn . Goldin - Banas, Trnava 1 989 went 1 2 . e5 ! de (12 . . . Be5 ? 1 3. Nf3; 12. . . de

1 3. Qd8 KdB 1 4 . f4, and now 1 4 . . . f6 15. 0-0-0 KeB 16.Nd5 Bt5 1 7.Nc7 Kf7

1 O.BbS Bd7 1 1 .Bd7 Kd7 1 2.0-0-0 Kc6 1 3. Nf3 NcS 1 4.BeS Na4 1 S.Bg7 Rhc8 1 6. NeS Kd6 1 7 .Kb1 Ke6 1 8.Nf3 f6 = ECO. BUST

1 O . Bb5(?) only seems to help Black ; the refore White should play 1 0.0-0-0 ! ,

VOLUME D

207

when 1 O . . . N dc7 1 1 . Be? N c7 1 2 . Bc4 leaves him with a clear advantage. SOURCE

Vajnerman-Wittman , ca rr. 1 989.

084 note 20 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0-0 6.cd Nd5 7.Nd5 Qd5 8.Bc7 Na6 9.Bg3 Bf5 1 O.a3 Rac8 1 1 .Nf3

NOVELTY

What could be new i n the diagram m ed position? Well, how about 7. Bb5 c6 8 . Ba4 and let Black wonder what to do. He has three m ai n tries : 1 ) 8 . . . b5 9 . Bb3 b4 1 0 .Ne2 be 1 1 . Be3 BaG 1 2 . Rc1 Qa5 1 3 . Nc3 Nd7 1 4 .Qd2 0-0 1 5 .Ne2 Qd2 1 6. Kd2 + = , as in Schlosser­ Zakic, Budapest 1 99 1 .

Rc2 1 2.b4 Qb3 1 3.Ba6 Qc3 1 4.Kf1 ba, with compensation -ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Unless Black is comfortable with the degree of his compensation , he's better off following analysis by Akopjan, e .g. 1 1 . . . Bc2 ! 1 2 . 0 d 2 B e4 1 3 . Bd 3 Bd3 ! 1 4.0d3 Nc5 1 5 .Qe2 N b3 1 6. Rd 1 Qa5 1 7 .Kf1 (1 7.Nd2 Rc2 -+) Nc1 ! 1 8 .Od2 Qb5 1 9 . Ke1 Nb3 20.0e2 Qa5 with a draw by repetition . An exce llent display of piece coordination. SOURCE CYB 2/295.

3) 8 . . . 0-0 9.Ne2 e5 1 0 .0-0 Nd7 1 1 . Ba3 R e 8 1 2 . Bb3 N b 6 1 3 . f4 e d 1 4 .f5 gf 1 5 . Ng3 Qh4 1 6.cd f4 1 7. N h5 Bg4 1 8 . Bf7 Kh8 1 9 .Ng7 Bd 1 20.Ne8 Bh5 (20 . Be2!? -Ftacnik) 2 1 .Nd6 Bf7 22.Nf7 Kg8 23.Nd6 Qf6 24 . R ad1 , 1 /2/-1 /2 in Pribyl- Smejkal, Pard u bice 1 992. Finally, Ftacn i k c ites S mejkal's suggestion of 7 . Bb5 Bd7 8 . Be2 c5 9 . Nf3 cd 1 O.cd BeG. I n sum mary, White h as a n eat surprise weapon here.

..

SOURCE

Lubomir Ftacnik, "A New Try Against the G ru nfeld," Inside Chess, Vol . 5 , No.20 (Octo be r 1 2 , 1 992 , pp.28 �30. lnt� rested read e rs can't do Without th 1s back 1ssu e :

)

085 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc Bg7

208

2) 8 . . . 0-0 9.Ne2 c5 1 0.0-0 Nc6 1 1 . Be3 Qc7 1 2. Rc1 e6 1 3. Bf4 Oe7 1 4 .Qd2 Bd7 1 5 .dc e5 1 6. Bg5 f6 1 7. Be3 Be6 1 8 . Bb3 Rad8 1 9 . Bd5 + - . Kram n i k- Mo uto u sis, Oakham 1 992.

E.C.O. BUSTED!

three full pages of analysis and games, all _ of them Important!

085 line 46 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc Bg7 7.Nf3 cS 8. R b1 0-0 9 . Be2 N c 6 1 O . d 5 N e 5 1 1 . Ne5 Be5 1 2 .Qd2 e6 1 3.f4 Bg7 1 4.c4 ed 1 5 .cd Bd4 1 6.Bb2 Q b6 1 7 .Bd3 c4 1 8. B c4 ReB 1 9.e5 Bf5 20.Qd4 Bb1

2 1 . Kf 2

Qd4 2 2 . Bd4 compensation -ECO.

Bf5 ,

w i th

BUST

Perhaps there should be a rule th at "theory" has to stop by move ten ; at least such a rule wo uld m in i m ize problems l ike the one we find here. Th is line is EGO's magna summa of the 9 . . . Nc6 Gru nfeld, and yet White has a forced win from the diagram . 2 1 .Qc3 ! was pointed out by M ark Morss i n a l etter to Chess Life, and Larry Evans analyzes three defenses: 1 ) 21 . . . a5 22.a3 Rac8 23. e6 f6 24.Qf6 Qe3 25. Kd 1 Bc2 26.Kc2 Rc4 (26... Qe4 27.Kd1 Qbt 2B.Kd2) 2 7 . Kb1 Qe4 28 . Ka1 . 2) 2 1 . . . Rf8 (21 . . . f6 22.d6 Kgl 23.e6) 22 .d6 Kg? 23. e6 f6 24.e7 Rae8 25. Kf1 . 3) 2 1 . . . Bf5 22.e6 f6 23.Qf6 Oe3 24 . Kf1 (24.Be2! -ed.) Bd3 25. Bd3 Qd3 26.Kf2.

SOURCE

�arry Evans, "Evans o n Chess," Chess Life, August 1 990, p .38.

085 note 1 21 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc Bg7 7.Nf3 c5 8.Be3 Qa5 9.Qd2 Bg4 1 O.Rb1

Bf3 1 1 .gf cd 1 2.cd Qd2 1 3.Kd2 Nc6 1 4.d5 0-0-0 1 5.Ba6! +- ECO. BUST

I nstead of 1 O . Bf3, Timman-lvanchuk L i n a r e s 1 9 92 we n t 1 O . a6 ! 1 1 . R b . .

. .

3

( 1 1 . Rb7 Nc6! 12.e5 Bf3 13.gf cd 14.cd Qd2 15.Bd2 [15.Kd2 Be5! 1 6.de 0-0-0] Nd4 =+) b5 with good co unterplay. The game was drawn in 42 exciting, combative moves. SOURCE

R C R 1 /3 1 8 .

085 note 250 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc Bg7 7.Nf3 c5 8.Rb1 0-0 9.Be2 cd 1 O.cd Qa5 1 1 .Bd2 Qa2 1 2.0-0 Nd7 ! ? 1 3.Bb4 Nb6

VOLUME D

209

N o w E G O ex a m i n e s o n ly 9 . . . b 6 , plan n ing . . . Bb7, . . . Nc6, . . . Na5, and . . . c5. The following Oueenside blitzkreig may be of interest: NOVELTY

9 . . . b5!? 1 O . Bd3 c5 1 1 . Be3 c4 1 2 . Bc2 N a6 1 3.Rb1 Nc7 1 4 .0d2 Re8! 1 5 .f4 f5 1 6 .Ng3 Rf8 1 7 .Rbe1 Bb7 1 8 . Kh 1 (more

active was 1 B. d5 RadB 1 9. Bd4 NeB -Burger) e6 1 9 . Bg 1 a5 2 0 . Re2 Rab8 2 1 . Rd 1 b4! 22 .cb ab 23 . Qb4 Be4 24.Qc4 Bd5 25.Qa4 Qd6 26.Qa5 Qf4 , and 0-1 /38. Koskinen-Burger, carr. 25th Kirjeshakki.

Given by ECO without com ment.

SOURCE

BUST

Wh ite wi ll have to find a new approach to this position after the game Tukm akov­ Gavrikov, Moscow 1 989 , which co ncluded abruptly with 1 4.Qd3 Be6! 1 5 .d5 (else 15... Bc4) N d 5 1 6 . e d Bf5 (the res t is inertia) 1 7.Qe3 Bb1 1 8 . Be7 Rfc8 1 9. Ng5 Bf5 20 . Bf3 Rc3 2 1 .Qf4 Qc4 22.Qc4 Rc4 23.d6 Rd4 24 . Bb7 Rb8 25.Bc6 h6 26. Nf3 Rc4 27.Bd5 Rc5 28 . Ba2 Bd7, 0- 1 . SOURCE

" Po rtrait: Heinrich Burg er," Fernschach International, M arch 1 992, p . 1 37.

D86 1 ine 9 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc Bg7 7 .Bc4 0-0 8.Ne2 b6 9.h4 Nc6 1 0.Bd5 Qd7 1 1 .h5 e6 1 2.Bb3 e5 1 3.hg hg 1 4.Bh6 Bh6 1 5 .Rh6 Kg7 1 6.Qd2 Ba6 1 7.Ng3!? += ECO.

Inside Chess, Vol.2, No . 1 3- 1 4 , p.5.

D86 1ine 4 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc Bg7 7.Bc4 0-0 8.Ne2 Qd7 9.0-0

CORRECTION

If the following game is any indication , Wh ite's advantage m ay be m uch more t h a n " s l i g h t " ; i n any c as e , i t's q u i te entertaining: 1 7 . . . Qg4 (1 7. . . Ne 7 may be

210

E.C.O. BUSTED!

the only try -ed) 1 8 . Bd5 Bb7 1 9 . Rh5! g h 20. Nf5 Kf6 2 1 . Bc6 Bc6 22 .de Ke5 23 .Qd4 Ke6 24.f3 Qg2 25.Qc4 Ke5 26. Qc6 Qf3 27.Qc7 Ke4 28. Ng3 Kd3 29 .Qd6 Kc4 3 0 . Q b4 Kd5 3 1 . R d 1 Q d 1 3 2 . Kd 1 f5 3 3 . N h 5 R ad8 3 4 . Qb5 Ke4 35 . Ke2 f4 36.0c6 Kf5 3 7 . N g 7 Kg4 38 .Qg6 Kh3 39 . Kf3 Rd3 40.Qd3, 1 -0 . An old-fashioned King h u nt! SOURCE

Finegold- De Boer, Wijk aan Zee 1 992.

087 note 1

Qe4 1 7. Kf1 Kg? 1 8 .hg hg 1 9 .Qd2 Bf5 20 .Qc3 f6 2 1 .Re1 , 1 -0 . 2 ) Zvara-Adam , Oberwart 1 992 saw 1 O . . . Qc7 1 1 .h4 Rd8 1 2 . h5 Na5 1 3 . Bd3 b6 1 4. hg hg 1 5. Nf4 cd 1 6.cd Qb7 1 7.e5 g5 1 8 .e6 gf 1 9.Rh8 Bh8 20.Qh5 Bg7 2 1 .Qf7 Kh8 22.Ke2 Qg2 23.Qh5 Kg8 24 .Bh7 Kh8 25 . Be4, 1 -0 . N aturaly, Black h as a variety of counters at his disposal, but the point is that th e h4 " bayo n et" attack is fu lly playable fo r White. SOURCE NIC 25 , p. 1 25 .

1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc Bg7 7 .Bc4 0-0 8 .Ne2 cs 9.Be3 Nc6

089 note 9 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc Bg7 7 .Bc4 cs B.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 1 0.0-0 cd 1 1 .cd Bg4 1 2.f3 Na5 1 3.Bd3 Be6 1 4.Rc1 Ba2 1 5 .0a4 Be6 1 6.d5 Bd7 1 7 .Qb4 b6 1 8.Ba6

1 O.h4? cd 1 1 .cd Od6 1 2 .Rc1 Rd8 1 3.d5 Ne5 1 4.Qb3 Bd7 · + ECO. BUST

Instead of 1 O . h4 ? ECO only recommends 1 0.0-0, transposing to more usual lines. White can, however, forego castling and launch the h-pawn attack, but h e should first p lay 1 0 . Rc1 ! . Now note the two following short gam es : 1 ) M arke l u k-Aimeyra, B u enos Aires 1 991 went 1 0 . . . Qc7 1 1 .h4 e5 1 2 . h5 cd 1 3 .cd ed 1 4. Nd4 Nd4 1 5 . Bd4 Qf4 1 6 . Bg7

Bc8 1 9.Bc8 ReB 20.Rc8 Qc8 21 .Qe7 Qc2 ECO. =

IMPROVEMENT

R ather than return the pawn, Black can hang on to h is gains as i n Tsemekhman­ Kud r i n , U . S . Open 1 992. That game continued from the diagram with 1 8 . . . e5!? 1 9 . Nc3 Bf6 20. Bh6 Bg? 21 .Bg7 Kg7 22.f4,

VOLUME D

21 1

when I M Jack Peters gives 22 . . . ef 23 . Rf4 (23.e5 Qg5 24. 014 Qt4 =+) Qg5 24. Rcf1 Qe5 " . . . holding the extra pawn with a solid position ." SOURCE

Inside Chess, Vol .5, No. 1 8 (September 1 4 , 1 992) , pp.24-25.

Kaukonen-Laurencen a, corr. 1 990.

093 1ine 8 1 .d4 Nf6 2 .e4 g6 3.Ne3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5 .Bf4 0-0 6.e3 e5 7 .de Qa5 8.Re1 de4 9.Be4 Oe5 1 0. B b3 Ne6 1 1 .0-0 Qa5 1 2 .h3 Bf5 1 3.Qe2 N e4 1 4.Nd5 e5oo ECO.

089 note 26 1 .d4 Nf6 2.e4 g 6 3.Ne3 d 5 4.ed Nd5 5.e4 Ne3 6.be Bg7 7 .Be4 e5 8.Ne2 Ne6 9.Be3 0-0 1 0.0-0 ed 1 1 .ed Bg4 1 2.f3 Na5 1 3.Bd3 Be6 1 4.d5 Ba1 1 5.0a1 f6 1 6.8h6 ReS 1 7.Kh1 Bd7

BUST

M atters c l e a r e d u p s h o rt l y i n S e r g e ev-Titlian ov, U S S R 1 9 92 aft e r 1 5 . Bg5 !. Now 1 5 . . . Ng5 (15... h6 [15. . . Ne5

1 8.e5 ReB 1 9 .Nf4 Ne4 ! 20.e6 B b5 ECO.

-+

BUST

1 7 . Kh1 isn 't as bad as ECO would have us think; White's sustained initiative won 't dissipate because he takes tim e out to avoid surprise checks. Observe White's "Rook lift" in the following game , wh ich diverged from the diagram with 1 8 .f4 Rca 1 9 .e5 Nc4 20. Rf3 e6 2 1 . Rg3 Kf7 22 .f5 ef 23 .e6 Be6 24 .de Re6 25 .h4 Rd6 26 .Qb1 Rb6 27.Qf1 Ne5 28. Bf5 Rc4 29.Nf4 Qd2 30.Ng6, 1 -0 . Seemingly effortless. SOURCE

212

1 6.Be4 + -} 1 6.Ne7! Ne 7 1 7. Be 7 RfeB 1 8.g4 Re t 1 9. Re 1 ReB 20.Rd1 + -) 1 6. Ng5 h 6 walked into 1 7. Re6 ! hg {1 7. .. bc 1 8.Ne 7 Kh8 1 9.Nf7 Kh 7 20.Nf5 gf 2 1 . Qh5 + + -) 1 8 . Rc7 Rad8 1 9 .Ne7 Kh7 20.Rfe1 Be4 2 1 . Qc4 Bd3 2 2 . Qg4 Bf6 23 . Qf3 Kg ? 24.Qb7 Od2 25 . Rd1 Qb2 26.Nc6 Bc4 27 .Nd8 , 1 -0 . N otes after those of Sergeev. SOURCE

Informant 53/474

097 line 1 8 1 .d4 Nf6 2.e4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0b3 de 6.Qe4 0-0 7.e4 Na6 8.Be2 e5 9.d5 e6 1 0.0-0 ed 1 1 .ed ReB 1 2.Be3 Bf5 1 3. Rad1

E.C.O. BUSTED!

Ne4 1 4.Ne4 Re4 1 5.Qe1 Qb6oo ECO. NOVELTY

I . Farago- Kozu l , Mo ntpel lier 1 989 saw Black execute an un expected m aneuver: 1 3 . . .Qb6!? 1 4 .b3 Re3!? 1 5 .fe Ng4 1 6 .Na4 Qd6 1 7 .Qf4 Qf4 1 8 .ef Nb4 ! , with great c o m p e n sati o n . A l i ttl e p r e parati o n , enabling one to feel at home i n these m u rky waters, might yield a scalp or two! SOURCE

After 20... ab

SOURCE

J . D e l ab i e , " G r u n f e ld - H u n g a r ian Variation ," CYB 2, p.1 54.

097 note 56 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 de 6.Qc4 0-0 7 .e4 a6 8.Qb3 c5 9.de Nbd7 1 O.Qa3 Qe7 1 1 .Be3 Ng4 1 2.Bg5

Inside Chess, Vo l.3, No . 1 (Jan uary 22 , 1 990} , pp.24-25.

097 n ote 26 1 .d4 Nf6 2 .e4 g6 3. Ne3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 de 6.0e4 0-0 7.e4 a6 8.a3 ? ! b5 9 . Q d 3 es ! 1 O . d e Q e 7 1 1 . B e3 Rd8 1 2.Qe2 Bb7 1 3.Be2 Ng4 1 4.Nd1 Nd7 1 5 .Re1 Ne3 1 6. Ne3 Qa5 1 7 .b4 Qa3 1 8.0-0 Rae8 ! 1 9.Rb1 a S ! 20.Bb5 ab -+ (diagram ) -ECO. BUST

White's 8.a3 is ad mittedly not the most i ncisive move available, but n either does i t h a n d B l a c k a c l e a r a d v a n tag e . Continuing from th e diagram , Postal I M J . Delabie analyzes 2 1 .c6 Bc6 22. Bc6 Nb8 23 .Nc4! Qa6 24 . Bd5 e6 with equal ity.

Ngf6 1 3.Be3

=

ECO.

NOVELTY

I f Black is not content with a triple re petitio n in the fi rst fifteen moves of the

VOLUME D

21 3

g a m e h e can p l ay t h e " b e r z e rk e r" 1 2 . . . b5 ! !oo (- Ungla ub, without furth er comment). I n d e e d , t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s suddenly seem lim itless, and one can imagine moves like 1 3. Bb5 or 1 3 . Be7 Rea 1 4.Bd6 Qb7 when , l ike Do rothy, we ' re definitely not in Kansas anymore . . . .

SOURCE

Lev G u tm a n , " I n side Track , " Inside Chess, Vol . 2 , No . 1 2 (June 26, 1 989) , pp.28-29.

SOURCE

CYB 6/301 .

097 note 93 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 dS 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 de 6.Qc4 0-0 7.e4 Na6 8.Be2 c5 9.d5 e6 1 0.0-0 ed 1 1 .ed BfS 1 2.Rd1 ReS

1 3.Bg5 h6 1 4 .Bf6 Bf6 1 5 .a3 Qb6 1 6.Rd2 Rad8 1 7.Rad1 Rd6 1 8.h3 hS = + ECO. BUST

An article by G randmaste r Gutman shows the way fo r White to mai ntain his opening advantage. From the diagram play co n t i n u e s 1 3 . d 6 ! h 6 (13... Ne4 ?

14.d7! Re 7 1 5. Ne4 Re4 1 6.Bg5! Rc4 [16... Bf6 1 7.Bf6 Qf6 1 8. Qc3] 1 7. Bd8 RdB 1B.Bc4 Bb2 19.Ng5! + - Kasparov) 1 4 .a3! Nd7 (14 . . . Ne4 1 5. Be3!) 1 5 . Q a2 ! N b6 1 6 .Be3 Be6 1 7.Qb1 , and now Gutman gives 1 7 . . . Bb3 1 8 . Rd2 Nc4 1 9. Bc4 Bc4 20.0c1 ! when White is better.

214

E.C.O. BUSTED!

VOL UME E

VOLUME E

21 5

21 6

E.C.O. BUSTED!

9.b3 e3 1 o.ab ab 1 1 .Ra8 Baa 1 2.e4 Nf6 1 3.Ne3 b4

E04 note 1 1 4 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 dS 4.Bg2 de 5.Nf3 Ne6 6.0-0 Rb8 7.Ne3 bS? 8.Ne5 Ne5 9.de Nd7 1 O.Be6 a6 1 1 .Qd4 Bb7 1 2 .Bb7 Rb7 1 3. Rd1 +- ECO.

fti� .....

� - -� /.

P'�mf .....� �

z

1 4.Na4 Be4 1 5.Be4 Ne4 1 6.Qh5 g6 1 7.Qf3 Nf6 1 8. Nc5, with compensation - ECO.

/:

CORRECTION BUST

S . l vanov is willing to take the Black side of the diagram , contin u i ng with 1 3 . . . c5 ! . Now Krase nkov- l vanouv, R ewal 1 9 92 saw 1 4 .Qg4 Qc7 1 5 . Bf4 (Vasilchenko­

S. Ivanov, Podolsk 1 992 went 1 5. f4 Qc6 1 6.e4 b4 1 7.Nd5 ed 1 8.ed Og6 1 9. 0f3 h5!? 20.d6 RbB 2 1 . Be3 Qf5, and instead of 22.Rac 1 g6 23.Rc4 Bg7 -+, Ivanov gives 22.Rd5!? g6 23.e6 Qe6 24.Re 1 KdB 25. f5 Qf6=) Oc6 1 6 .e4 h5 ( 1 6. . . b4 1 7.Nb 1 [1 7.Nd5!? ed 1 8. ed Qg6 1 9. Qf3, with compensation] Oe4 1 8.Nd2 Od5! 1 9. Qe2 Qd3oo) 1 7 . Q f 3 B e ? 1 8 . h 4 g 6 . N o w Krasenkov played 1 9 .Nd5?! (0- 1 /29), but I vanov analyzes 1 9 .a4 0-0 20 .ab ab 2 1 .g4 !?oo. Notes by S . lvanov and Yu neev. SOURCE

N I C 27, p.1 1 5 .

A c co rd i n g to N I C 2 5 , Vag a n i a n ' s analysis cited here by ECO gives 1 7 . . . Nd6 rathe r than 1 7 . . . Nf6. I n fact, 1 7 . . . Nd6 does seem to make more sense than placing the Knight on a porous square like f6, i nviting a troublesome pin. IMPROVEMENT

Fro m the diagram White may do better with 1 4 .Nb5 ! ? ( Lputian), and now 1 4 . . . c6

( 1 4 . . . Be4 ? 1 5. Be4 Ne4 1 6. Qf3 Nf6 1 7. Nc6 +-) 1 5 .d5 ! cb (15... cd 1 6.0c2!) 1 6 .de Qd 1 (16.. . fe ? 1 7. Qd8 Kd8 18.Nf7 KeB 1 9 . Nh 8 + - was Vladim iro v­ Thorhallsson, Gausdal Open 1 991) 1 7. ef Ke7 1 8 .Rd1 reach es a position which Krasenkov says "looks dangerous fo r B lack" . SOURCE

N IC 25 , p.200.

E04 note 1 60

E04 note 1 65

1 .d4 Nf6 2.e4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 de 5.Nf3 a6 6.0-0 b5 7.Ne5 Nd5 8.a4 Bb7

1 .d4 Nf6 2.e4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 de 5 .Nf3 a6 6.0-0 b5 7.Ne5 Nd5 8.a4 Bb7 9.e4 Nf6 1 O.ab ab 1 1 .Ra8 BaS 1 2.Ne3 e6

VOLUME E

21 7

1 3 .Bg5 Bb7 1 4.Nf7 Kf7 1 5.e5 h6 1 6.Bh4 g5 1 7.ef Qf6 1 8.Ne4 Qg6 1 9.Qa1

After 1 2 . . Nc6 .

1 8 .b3 Qh5 1 9 . Rfd1 Rb5 2 0 . Rac1 a5 2 1 . Rd6 +- and 1 -0/38. with compensation -ECO.

SOURCE

BUST

Ribli-Gopal, Calcutta 1 992.

EGO's line is analysis o n ly, citing no games. Two corresponde nce encounte rs that continued from th e diagram , however, indicate that White does not have enough for th e piece . Bu rger-Tyagu nov, corr. 1 988 proceeded with 1 9 . . . Na6 20.Bg5 hg 2 1 .f4 g4 (2 1 . . . gf 22. Rf4 Ke 7 23. Qa5 Bg7

E1 0 note 1 6 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 cs 4.d5 ed S.cd b5

24. Qb6 RbB 25. Nc5 Nc5 26. Qc5 Kd7 was So/tau-Bryson corr. 1 989) 2 2 . Ng5 Kg8 23 .Qa5 Qe8 24 .Qe 1 Rh6 25 .Qe2 Qh5, and in both cases Black stands well. SOURCE

N IC 25 , p.202 .

EOS note 27 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e 6 3.g3 d S 4.Bg2 d e 5.Nf3 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Ne5 cS 8 .dc B cS 9.Nc3 Qe7 1 0.Bg5 h6 1 1 .Bf6 Qf6 1 2.Nc4 Nc6 (diagram) 1 3.Ne4 Qe7 1 4.e3 Rd8 1 5.Qb3 + = ECO. IMPROVEMENT

From the diagram White should go for pawn structure with 1 3 . Bc6! be 1 4 .N e4 Qe7 1 5 . Ne5 Qc7 1 6.Nc5 Qe5 1 7.Qc2 Rb8

218

6.Q c 2 ! ? Bb7 7.e4 Qe7 8.Nbd2 ! Bd5 9.Bb5 Be4 1 O.Ne4 Qe4 1 1 .Qe4 Ne4 1 2 .0-0 + - ECO. NOVELTY

Doubtless the re is plenty of room fo r both sides to i mprove in EGO's l i n e !

E.C.O. BUSTED!

A n yway, W h ite can also p l ay as i n S . Rubinstein- Djantar, Yugoslavia 1 958, which conti n u ed from the diagram with 6.e4!? N e4 7 . Bd3 Nd6 (Minev considers

Black 's best to be 7. . . Nf6 8.0-0 d6 [8. . . c4 ? 9.Re 1 Bel 1 0.d6] 9.Bb5, though White stands better) 8 .0-0 Be? 9.Re1 c4 1 0 . B f4 0 - 0 1 1 . Bc2 R e S 1 2 . N c3 a6 1 3 . N e 5 b4 1 4 . N e 4 f6 ? 1 5 . N d 6 B d 6 1 6 .Bh7 Kh? 1 7 .Qh5 Kg8 1 8 .0f7 , 1 -0 i n view of 1 8 . . . Kh8 1 9 . Re3. SOURCE

N i ko l ay M i n ev, " M i n e v o n Tactics , " Inside Chess, Vo l .3 , N o . 1 2 ( J u n e 25, 1 990) , p.22 .

E 1 1 note 1 6

1 2 . Nd2 (12. 0-0 Bd7 13.Nd2 Bc6) Bd?!. Now Ftacnik gives 1 3 .Ne4 fe 1 4 .Be4 Ne4 1 5 . Qe4 Bc6 1 6 .d5 ed 1 7.Qg4 Rf7 1 8 .0-0, or 1 3.f3 Nd2 1 4 .0d2 Bc6 1 5.0-0 with balanced chances i n each case. The actu al game was also quite i nteresting after 1 3 . Nf1 Qh5, and 0- 1 /45 with many adve ntu res i n between. Notes based on an notations by Ftacn ik. SOURCE

In side C h e ss, Vo l . 4 , N o . 25 - 2 6 ( December 23, 1 99 1 ) , pp.27-28 .

E1 2 note 1 82 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.a3 g6 6.Qc2 Bf3 7 .gf Bg7

1 .d4 Nf6 2 .c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4 4.Nbd2 0-0 s.a3 Bd2 6.Qd2 ! ?

G i v e n by E G O without com m e nt o r evaluation .

8.f4 0-0 9.Bg2 Nc6 1 0.e3 Na5 1 1 .Ne2 d5 1 2.cd ed 1 3.0-0 Qd7 1 4.Bd2 Nc4 1 5 .Bb4 Rfc8 1 6.b3 Nd6 1 7 .Bd6 Qd6 1 8 . Bh3 Re8 1 9.b4 += ECO. IMPROVEMENT

CORRECTION

Thanks to the game Ftacn ik-Benjam i n , Los A n g e l e s 1 9 9 1 we c a n b eg i n to evalu ate 6.Qd2. That enco u nter went 6 . . .d6 7.b3 N bd? 8 . Bb2 Ne4 (8 . . . Qe7 9.g3 e5 1 0.de de 1 1 .Bg2 +=) 9.Qc2 f5 1 O .g3

(1 0.e3 b6 1 1 .Bd3 Bb7 12. 0-0 Oe8 with attacking prospects) Ndf6 1 1 . Bg2 Qe8

Fro m the diagram White should play the more n atu ral 8 . Bg 5 ! , when Dorfman­ Romanishi n , Polan ica Zdroj 1 992 went 8 . . . h6 9. Bh4 Nc6 (Black was clearly worse

in Belia vsky-Christiansen, Groningen 1 992 after 9. . .g5 1 0. Bg3 Nh5 1 1 .e3 d6 12.Be2 c5 13.d5 Ng3 14.hg Bc3 15.0c3 e5 1 6.f4 + -) 1 0 . 0-0-0 Ne? 1 1 .d5 ed

VOLUME E

21 9

(1 1 ... Nf5 12.Bg3 Nh5 1 3.de fe 14.Nb5 Nhg3 15.hg a6 16.Nc3 b5 1 7.g4 Ne 7 18.c5 +- was no help in Savchenko-Davies, Groningen 1992) 1 2.cd Nf5 1 3 .Bg3 0-0 1 4 .e4 Ng3 1 5.hg Qe? 1 6.f4 +- .

E1 5 note 1 22 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 B b7 6.Bg2 Bb4 7.Bd2 c5 a.0-0 0-0 9.d5? ! ed 1 0.Bb4 cb

SOURCE

N igel Davies, TN Pocketbook 1 .d4 Vol.1 ( Lo n do n : Tre n ds P u b l i catio n s , 1 993) , pp. 1 B- 1 9.

E 1 4 note 71 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.e3 Bb7 5.Bd3 c5 6.0-0 Be7 7.Nc3 cd a.ed d5 9.b3

1 1 . Ne1 Na6 1 2 .cd Rea 1 3 .a3 Qc7 1 4.Nc2 Qe5 1 5.ab Nb4 1 6.f4 Qb2 · + ECO. BUST

9 .d5 is n aturally a desirable advance if it _ can be gotten i n safely. Sure enoug h , rn t h e d i ag ra m m ed positio n White has 1 1 . N h4 ! , eyeing a much more useful home o n f5 . N o w K a rp o v g i v e s 1 1 . . . N e 4 Ne4 1 0.Bb2 Nd7 1 1 .Qe2 Nc3 1 2.Bc3 0-0 1 3.Rac1 Rca 1 4.Bb2 Bf6 = ECO. BUST

9.b3 may not be playable if White ca� 't do better with his h anging pawns than rn the fo llowing game : 9 . . .dc! 1 O.bc Nc6 1 1 . Be3 0 - 0 1 2 . h 3 N a5 1 3 . R c 1 ReB 1 4 .Ne5 NeB! -+ . White is about to be disrupted in a big way. SOURCE

Malanyuk-Sneider, Kaspala 1 992.

220

(1 1 ... Na6 and 1 1 . . . Re8 are possible, but not 1 1 . . . Qc 7? - see Stern-Sipo v, Berlin 1 992) 1 2 .Qd4 Qf6 1 3 .Qf6 Nf6 1 4. N f5 + = . SOURCE

Informant 55/5 1 6.

E1 5 note 221 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Bg2 c6 a.Bc3 d5 9.Nbd2 Nbd7 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .Re1 c5 1 2 .e4 d e 1 3.Nc4 B b7

E.C.O. BUSTED!

1 4.e5 Nd5 1 5 . B b 2 b5 1 6 .Nd6 Bd6 1 7.ed c4 """ ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Karpov fo u nd 1 4 .Qd3 ! , wh ich seems to m a i n tai n t h e tension to good effect. Karpov-Khalifman, Reykjavik 1 991 went 1 4 . . . cd 1 5 .Nd4 Nc5 1 6.Qc2 a6 1 7. Rad1 Qc7 1 8. Bd2 Ned? 1 9 . Bf4 Qc5 20.Bc1 + - . Later, however, Karpov met 1 4 . . . Rc8 , when there followed 1 5 . Rad1 b5 1 6. Ba5 Oe8 1 7. Ncd2 cd 1 8 .e5 N c5 1 9 .Qd4 N d5 20 .b4 N a6 21 .a3 Qd7 22.Qa7 Nc5 23.Ne4 N e4, 1 /2-1 /2 . Count on fu rther exploration of th is line.

After 1 3... d4

I nstead of EGO's 1 3 . . .d4(?} , Marin-Vehi Bach, Rosas 1 992 went 1 3 . . .d6 1 4 .Qh5

( 1 4. ed? Of4 -+ ; 1 4. Qd5 Nf4 15. Qd6 Ne6 =+) d4 1 5 . Bd2 Be6 1 6 .Be2 Nc6 1 7.0-0 0-0-0 1 8 .R fc1 c4 1 9 .f4 f6 20.Bd 1 , and n o w M a r i n gives 2 0 . . . Qa6 2 1 .a4 + instead of the actual 20 . . . Qa3?? 2 1 . Bg4, 1 -0. Notes based on comments by Marin. SOURCE

N IC 27, p.1 24.

E20 note 1 28

SOURCE

Karpo v - P o l u gaevsk i , Reggio E m i l i a 1 992 .

E20 l i ne 29

1 .d4 Nf6 2 .c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 dS 5.a3 Be7 6.e4 de 7.fe es 8.d5 Bc5 9.Nf3 Ng4 1 0.b4 Bf2 1 1 .Ke2 c5 !

1 .d4 Nf6 2 .c4 e6 3.Nc3 B b4 4.f3 cs 5 .d5 Nh5 6.Nh3 Qh4 7.Nf2 Qc4 8.e4 Bc3 9.bc Qc3 1 O.Bd2 Qd4 1 1 .Qc1 ed 1 2.Bc3 Qa4 1 3 .Qg5 d 4 ! ( d i agram} 1 4 . Bd 2 0-0 1 5 .Qh5 c4 1 6.Be2 Nc6 1 7.0-0oo ECO. BUS T

F ro m t h e d i ag r a m M a r i n an alyzes 1 4 . Q e5 ! Kd8 1 5 . Bd 2 Nf6 1 6 . Qc5 d6 1 7 .Qd6 Qd7 1 8 .Qg3 + - . NOVELTY

VOLUME E

221

1 2 .Nb5 a6 1 3.Qa4 ab! ! 1 4.Qa8 Bd4! - + ECO, citing Malan iuk- lvanch uk, U SS R

1 988.

BUST

8 . N g e 2 e5 9 . B h 3 0 - 0 1 O.d6 Nc6 1 1 .0-0 Bc3 1 2.bc b6 1 3.gf Nf4 1 4.Bf4 ef 1 5 .Kh1 +- ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Wh ite doesn't have to be so cooperative. In his notes to ECO's stem game lvanchuk an alyzed 1 2 .dc Bd4 - + , w h i c h was actually played in Khenkin-Boudre, Paris 1 991 . Sudden ly, however, Wh ite shot back with 1 3.c7 ! ! , and there fo llowed 1 3 . . . 0c7 1 4 . Nd5 Qd8 (14 . . . 0c6 1 5.Nd4

Oc4 16.Ke 1 Od4 1 7. 0d4 ed 1 8.Nc7 ++-; 1 4 . . . Qc4 15. Kd2! Oc6 1 6. Bb5! ++-) 1 5 .Nd4 ed 1 6 .Qd4 0-0 1 7.h3 Nc6 1 8 .Qc3 Oh4 1 9.g3 Oh5 20. Nf4 Oe5 (20. . . 0h6 2 1 .Bg2 Nf6 22.Ne6 Oh5 23. Bf3 ++-) 2 1 . Q e5 Nge5 2 2 . Ke 3 f5 23 . B b2 g5 24 .Nd5 fe 25. Be2 Nd3 26.Nf6 Kf7 27.Nh7 Rg8 (27... Nb2 28.Raf1 Kg7 29.Nf8 Ne5 30.c5! Nec4 [30 . . . Nt7 3 1 . Nh 7! Be6 32.Nf6] 3 1 . Kd4 Na3 32.Rf2! ++-) 28.Raf1 Kg6 29. Bd3 ed 30 . Nf8, 1 -0 . Notes based on comments in Russian Chess Review.

W h ite d e l i v e re d a m u c h q u icke r knockout from the diagram with 8 .de fg 9 .0d5 g2 1 0.Qh5 ! g6 1 1 .0e5 Bc3 1 2 .bc Qh4 1 3 . Ke2 gh=O 1 4 .0h8 Ke7 1 5 .Qg7 Ke6 1 6.Bh3 Qh3 1 7.0gB Kf6 1 8 . Bg5 , 1 -0. SOURCE

Sakaev-S.Silva, Guarapuava 1 99 1 .

E24 1 i ne 3 1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bc3 5.bc Ne4 6.Qc2 f5 7 .f3 Qh4 8.g3 Ng3 9.hg Qh1 1 O.Nh3 d6 1 1 .Kf2 e5 1 2.Bg2 Qh2

SOURCE

RCR 1 /356.

E20 note 1 85

. �.ft- -� r� � .�· �

1 .d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 Nh5 6.g3 f5 7.e4 f4

�.

. . . .

z

1 3 . B f4 e f 1 4 .gf N c 6 1 5 . R h 1 Q h 1 1 6.Bh1 Bd7 = + ECO. IMPROVEMENT

Wi l liam Mooney, in a letter to Chess Life, writes that he has played 1 3 . Bg5! from the diagram, and analyzes 1 3 . . . h 6 (13.. . 14

14.Nf4 ef 1 5. 0e4 Kd7 [1 5. . . Kf7 1 6. 0f4 and 1 7. Rh 1 } 1 6. 0f5 Ke8 [1 6 . . . Kc6 1 7. Qb5#} 1 7. 0c8 Kf7 1 8. 0f5 mating soon) 1 4 . Rh 1 O h 1 1 5 . B h 1 hg 1 6. Bg2 Nc6 1 7 . Ng5 . G randmaste r Evans calls the

222

E.C.O. BUSTED!

final positio n "rou g h ly eq ual", m aybe another way of sayi ng =I