Budapest gambit

Budapest Gambit OTTO BORIK Translated by Les Blackstock

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

F i rst published i n German Budapester Gambit 1 985 © Edition Madler im Walter Rau Verlag, Dusseldorf 1 985 First English edition 1 986 English translation © B.T. Batsford Ltd 1 986 as

ISBN 0 7 1 34 5297 8 (1imp)

Photoset by Andek Printing, London and pri nted in G reat Britain by Billing & Son Ltd, Worcester, for the publishers B. T.Batsford L td, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W I H OAH

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

Contents VI

Foreword

VIII

Symbols

IX

Acknowledgments

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

The Knight System 4 li::lf3

2

The Bishop System 4 i.f4

21

3

The Alek hine System 4 e4

32

4

Rare Systems

55

1 d4 li::lf6 2 c4 eS 3 de li::le4 5

Fajarowicz Gambit Introduction

6

Fajarowicz 4

'fl

moves on the d-file

58 62

7

Fajarowicz 4 11fc2

6H

8

Fajarowicz 4 li::lf3 and others

85

1 d4 li::lf6 2 c4 eS 9

Declining the Gambit

93

Foreword What should one play with Black? Every chessplayer has asked himself this question. Should one follow the greats and base one's own repe rtoire on, say, t he World Champion? Or should one adopt some aggressive variation to surprise the opponent? The following considerations speak in favour of t he second possibility: Professionals have a lot of time to study countless variations and refine them deep i n to the middlegame. F u rt hermore, chess masters are 'transparent' inasmuch as their games are regularly published. The result of this is that they play o nly established variations which have been examined in detail; the consumption of time for this is considerable. For the 'normal' league and tournament player the problem is quite different. He has not the advantage of ample time available for study, but also not the disadvantage t hat his own games are too well known and can be closely examined by his opponent. So he can play more enter­ prisingly and employ the element of surprise. A nd so we arrive at t he theme of this book. Every yea r hundreds of master games are published which open, for example, with t he Benoni. If you play t he Benoni it can easil y happen that your opponent has just discovered a novelty in a magazine and uses it against you . Suddenly, instead of your (possibly weaker) opponent, you must struggle against Grand master X, which seldom turns out well. The Budapest Gambit and Fajarowicz Gambit - the subjects of this book - are little played nowadays i nternationally; well i nformed professionals are hard to surprise there. At other levels, roughly up to 2200, one can be successfu l in many games with this surprise weapon , particularly if one i s familiar with the most i mportant ideas and combinations in this book. And if one meets a well-informed opponent (who k nows this variation and perhaps has also read this book) then one

m ust put up with a slight but defendable disadvantage; o ne also has to do that in many other openings with Black. With this in mind: much success, and above all m uch fun with the combinational, fascinating Budapest/ Fajarowicz Gambit! Olio Borik

Symbols + +

=

=

+

± � ±± H 00

!! !? ?! ? ?? corres 01 IZ L Ch l;lf

Check Slight advantage Clear advantage Winning advan tage Level position Unclear position Good move Ou tstandi ng move Interesting move Dubious move Weak move Blunder Correspondence Olympiad I nterzonal League Championship Semi-final

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

1

The Knight System 4 ltJf3 1

2 3 4

d4 c4 de lt:JrJ ( I )

tt:Jr6 eS lt:Jg4

I B

occasion ally appear: a) 4 ... d6? is an illogical gambit. The mai n idea of t h e Budapest Gambit consists above all in t he act ive post i n g of Blac k's KN on eS, at t he same t i me regai n i n g t h e sacrificed paw n . The move ... d6 only furt hers Black's development slightly, as t h e bishop is more act ive on c5 or b4 t h an on d6. A fter 5 ed i. xd6 6 lt:Jc3 0-0 7 e3 lt:Jc6 8 i.e2 i. f5 9 0-0 B lack has no compensation for t h e sacri ficed pawn, e.g. 9 ... �f6 10 h3 lt:Jgc5 II li:Jd4 ll:ad8? ( I I . .. i.g6? 12 f4 li:ld 7

Wit h t h is move White simul­ taneou sly protects the pawn on e5

13 f5; II ... i.d7 12 li:Jdb5 followed by 13 4Jxd6 ±. and finally II ..

and con t in u es h i s development.

li:lxd4 12 cd lt'Jg(l 13 c5 i.e7 14

This quiet con t i n u ation i s most

li:ld5) 12li:ld5 'tWg6 13 ..th S I-Uma

commonly played in t h e middle

simultaneous game.

and lower echelons of chess , but

b) 4 ... i.b4 + . This move has "no

also appears sometimes in i n ter­

independent significance as it leads

national tou rn aments.

by transpo sition of moves to a

Black now has two import ant

position considered in t h e next

cont i nuat i ons at his disposal:

few pages.In all practical examples

A 4 ... lt:Jc 6 B 4 . . . ..tcS

... li:lc6 and ... li:lg(c)xe5 are played

In practice t w o other moves

later, reae 7 37 �d3 't!rd4 h5 38 �fl 39 't!re2+ 'it>d8 40 't!re4 1!r xe4+

6 �c3 Here Black can commit a serious error by not capturing the kn ight on c3 im mediately. What can then happen is shown in the following game from the �golden age" of chess. The fact that the critical position is reached by transposition of moves is insignificant. Game 2 Thomas-Reti Baden-Baden 1 925 ( I d4 li'lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de �g4 4 �f3 �c6) li:JgxeS 5 �c3 e3 6 .i.b4 7 �d2 0-0 a3! .i.xc3 8 9 �xc3 d6 �xf3+ 1 0 �e2 II �xf3 �eS �e6 1 2 �e2 13 0-0 't!rd 7 The pawn on c4 is taboo: 13 . .. �xc4? 14 �xc4 �xc4 1 5 't!rd4 �e5 16 f4! wins a piece. c5! 14 The insecure positio n of the knight on e5 makes this advance possible, after which Black labours with a permanent weakness at d6. llfd8 14

4

The Knight System 4 li:Jf3

.-xd6 15 cd 16 'fkxd6 cd llac8 17 lUdl .ic4 lld4 18 1 9 lt>rl ! White centralises his king for the coming endgame. Here one could conclude from the theoretical point of view with the assertion that White stands better and realised his advantage in 73 moves. H ow­ ever, we will continue, as a very in teresting endgame with unusual points soon arises: f6 19 llc6 20 llad l .ib3 21 .ib4 22 llb l Better than 22 llxd6? lldxd6 23 llxd6 lic l + followed by . .. llb l . d5 22 lldc8 23 lt>e I lLlc4 24 i.c3 The tactical threat . . . lLl xa 3 is easi ly parried by the pressure on the wea k ness at d5. tt:Jb6 25 i.f3 Not 25 ... lLlxa3 26 ba llxc 3 27 lhb3! llxb3 2M ..txd5+ and 29 i.xb3. .ixdl 26 i.dl If Black avoids this exchange with 26 i.c4, there follows 27 a4, 2H a5, 29 i.f3 and 30 b3. The pawn on d5 is then systematically rounded up. lt>f7 27 llbxdl llc4 28 a4 . . .

tt:Ja4 aS 29 30 llxc4 llxc4 30 ... de? 31 lld7+ followed by llxb7 naturally cannot be contem­ plated. 31 llxd5 lLl xc3 32 be �e6 33 lib5 llc7 34 �d2 lld7+ 35 �c2 lt>d6 36 �c6 f3 37 b6 c4 38 g4 lle7 39 ab ab 40 �d3 (3) J B

In this ending Black put up further heroic resistance but could no longer save the ga me. 40 lia7 41 fg g5 42 llxg5 g6 43 h4 lle7 44 h5 Ilc6 45 f4 'i!id7 46 lt>d4 Ilc6 47 f5 gf

T-he Knight System 4 &iJj] 5 �e6 lilg7+ 48 lld6+ 49 lilxh7 �eS so �c3 lle6 Sl h6 �e4 S2 llh8 lle7 h7 S3 �xe3 S4 �b4 f4 ss �bS S6 �c6! With the neat idea that if 56 . . . f3 57 �d6 f2 (or rook any o n the 7th ran k, 58 lle8+ followed by h8W; rook any on the e-file, 58 llf8 etc) 58 �xe7! f l W 59 lle8 and White will promote on h8. S6 �1'2 f3 S7 �b6 llf7 S8 c;!;>c6 �n cS S9 f2 60 c;t;>b6 c;t;>e2 61 c6 62 lle8+ ..ti'd3 63 h8W nw 64 lld8+ �c2 6S Wh2+ litf2 66 WeS litf4 We i 67 WdS After 67 . . . litb4+ 68 c;t;>c7 Black has no more checks. If 67 ... Wf2+ 68 Wc5+ with a winning rook ending. 68 Wd3+ �cl c;!;>c2 69 WaH c;t;>b2 70 WcS+ 71 litb8 (4) A pleasing point: 7 1 . . . litb4+ 72 Wxb4+! .,xb4+ 73 f/;a7 and the c-pawn decides.

4 8

71 lla4 72 �c7+ �a l 1-0 73 litb3! Black is either mated or cannot avoid an exchange of queens on c3, after which White wins easily with his c-pawn. This example in no way casts doubt on .i.f8-b4. It only serves as a warning. We notice that Black may not give up the bishop pair if he allows White to recapture on c3 with his bishop. Thus we ret urn to the position after I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:lg4 4 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 5 e3 .i.b4+ 6 lt:lc3 and analyse the correct continuation for Black : 6 .txc3+! We7! 7 be By this means Black prevents c4-c5 and also .i.c l -a3. lt:lgxeS 8 a4 9 ..ia3 d6 10 cS White intends 10 . . . de II 1t'd5,

6

The Knight System 4 �/3

regaining the pawn favourably, as I I . . . b6?? fails to 12 �xe5. H ow­ ever, Black has a surprise ready: �xf3+ 10 \!reS! 11 gf de 12 t!Yd2 i.d7 13 i.bS 0-0-0 0-0 14 In the game Kamishov-Selyinsky, USSR 1 973, White did not have sufficient compensation for the pawn and Black won an interesting game in 58 moves. A13 6 �bd2 After the bishop check on Black's 5th move, W hite can also play 6 �bd2 as the East German grandmaster Rainer Knaak shows in t he following game: G ame 3 Knaak-Adamski Sandomierz /976 ( I d4 � f6 2 c4 e5 3 de llJg4 4 �f3 �c6 5 e3 .ib4+ 6 llJbd2) �gxeS 6 llJxeS 7 �xeS 8 i.e2 Here Black could have achieved a fully satisfactory game after 8 . . . d 5 !? 9 c d 1!rxd5 10 1fa4+ �c6 I I i.f3 1Wd6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 Jild l 11fe7 and now it is very risky for White to take the pawn on offer: 14 .txc6 be 1 5 11fxc6 Jilb8 with a very dangerous attack after the build-

up . . . Jilb6, . . . i.b7, . . . Jilg6 and . . . i.d6 - Traj kovic. In the game Black continued too hu rriedly: 8 \!rh4? 9 0-0 0-0 lle8 10 llJb3 �c6 11 �d4 1!t'f6 1 2 �rs i.d6?! (5) 1 3 llJg3 Better was the re-grouping 1 3 . . . i.f8 followed b y . . . g 6 a n d . . . i.g7. Such a set-up would firstly leave Black's kingside well secured, secondly would not leave the bishop on b4 cut off after an eventual d7-d6, and finally the pawn on g6 would take the squares h5 and f5 away from the knight on g3. 5 w

14 llJhS \!re7 IS a3 aS 16 .td2?! But now it is White who does not continue accurately. 1 6 f4! was better. The text move once again gives Black the opportunity

The Knight System 4 &oj3 to equalise: 1 6 . . . .i.e5! 1 7 1tc2 (or 1 7 � b l ) 1 7 . . . g6 H! ltJg3 a4! 19 .ic3 d6. The Polish master, how­ ever, allows hi mself to be tempted by apparently easy booty. 1!¥e5?! 16 17 f4 1!hb2 1!¥xa3 18 �bl 19 lib3 1!¥a4 .i.fB 20 .id3 2 1 .i.c3 I t 1s already too late for development by 2 1 . . . d6: 22 ltJf6+ ! gf 23 .ixh7+ xh8?? 1 61itc3+ etc) 1 6 Wc3 We7 1 7 0-0-0 ll:\g6 1 8 .id3 ll ae8 ( 1 8 . . . lL!xh4?? 1 9 ll xh4) 1 9 e 4 ll f7 20 llde 1 ll:\xh4 ( 20 . . . 'ftf8 2 1 ef .i xf5 22 lilxe8+ 1!txe8 23 .i xf5 l:lxf5 24 ll:Jf6+) 2 1 g3 fe ( 2 1 . . . ll:\g6 22 ef as before) 22 lL!xe4 lL!f3 23 ll:Jef6+ 'it>f8 24 lL!d5 1 -0. 7 g4

The Bishop System 4 J/J4 d6 8 ltJe2 h5 9 ltJf4 Preventing ltJh5, which can be very disruptive as we have just seen. 10 1Wc2 (25)

1Wg5 10 In his book The Budapest Defence Josef Staker suggests this i mprovement. Henneberke-Bakonyi, Holland v. H ungary 1 949, continued 10 . . . ltJa6 1 1 lL!d2 ltJc5 12 ltJe4 b6 1 3 ltJxc5 be 1 4 ..td3 ! with advantage to White. B lack cannot castle because of the weakness on h5. White plays ..te4, 0-0-0 and h3. 11 ttJd2 ..tr5 rlflJ 26 w

23

The author now conti nues with 12 e4('!) ..te6 and assesses the position quite correctly as open. However, White can play better. 1 2 t!fb3 b6 l3 c5! 0-0 This is the only reasonable move. 1 3 . . . be?? 14 'tWb7 loses for Black, as does 1 3 . . . de? 1 4 ..t xe5 ..txe5 15 'tid5. 14 cd cd 15 h4 The win of a pawn after 1 5 1Wd5 ltJ bc6 1 6 1Wxd6 llad8 would be very questionable. 15 't!fh6 1 5 . . . gh 1 6 ltJ xh3 cannot be good. 16 g3 ltJbc6 1 7 ..tg2 llac8 18 0-0 White stands clearly better. H is king position is rock solid and all his pieces stand well. There are two permanen t weaknesses in Black's camp to exploit ( h 5 and d6); the latter will soon become a target for the white rooks on the d-file. The k night on d2 will move to e4. The rest of the game will be very pleasant. B 4 ltJc6 5 ltjf3 ..tb4+ 6 ltJbd2 1re7 (27) Here White has two main alter­ natives:

24

The Bishop System 4 i./4

27 w

Or 1 1 li:lf3 a5 followed by . . . i.c5 with equality. II b6 12 a3 i.c5 With an equal game after 1 3 li:ld4 a5 or 1 3 li:l xc5 be followed by . . . a5, . . . f6, . . . i.e6 and play on t he b-file. We recall that we have seen this motif several times, e.g. in Game 7. �! t:. 5�t 4-mmediately, lf White plays Black m ust reply 14 . . . li:ld7 ! followed by . . . a5 with a good game.

�

81 7 e3 82 7 a3 81 e3 7 SchUssler and Wedberg give a convincing equalising line against this. li:lgxe5 7 8 li:lxe5 Or M a3 liJxfH 9 gf i.xd2+ 1 0 'ifxd2 d 6 I I llg l , van Scheltinga­ Adema, Holland )938. Black can obtain a fully satisfactory game with I I . . . li:le5 12 i.e2 f6 fol lowed by i.d7-c6. li:lxe5 8 9 ..te2 9 a3 transposes to 82. 0-0 9 d6 ( ? I I 0-0 I0 (Less accurate is 1 0 . . . i.xd2 1 1 't!Vxd2 d6 12 IIfd I b6 1 3 b4 i.b7 1 4 c5 de 1 5 be li:lg6 1 6 'ttd 7 'itxd7 1 7 IIxd7 ± Ga rcia Palermo-Rogers, Reggio E mi lia 1 984-85 - tr.] I I li:lb3

82 7

a3 (28)

28 B

7 li:lgxe5! The famous "K ieninger trap". The late German master Georg K ieninger once used it in an offband game against Godai at Vienna 1 925. There followed 8 ab?? li:ld3 mate. This example was henceforth quoted in m any chess books, though also under other na mes, for later many more

The Bishop SyJtem 4 �4 players

were

to

fall

into

the

"Kieninger t rap".

8

25

positional struggle in 66 moves. -

tr.]

lLlxeS

lLlxeS

13

b4

.ib7 {29)

A n ot her invitation to self-mate after 9 ab?? lLld3.

9

e3

Or 9 .ixe5 .ixd2+ (Black must now exchange as he no longer has a k n ight to give mate on d3!) 10 �xd2 �xeS with equality: a) 1 1 e3 b6 12 .ie2 .ib713 0-0 0-0-0 b) 1 1 g3 0-0 12 .ig2 lleg 13 e3 d6 14 0-0 .ie6 (15 .ixb7? llab8 and 16 lhb2; 15 llac l

9 10 II

� xd2

[Black

could

.ie2

=

)

.

Game S Lukacs-Schiissler Tuzla 1981

.ixd2+ d6 0-0

also

14

consider

.ig3

castling queenside, e.g. II ... b6 12

a) A nother example from a rece n t

e4 .ib7 13 f3 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 f6 15

tournamen t, Carlesson-We dbe rg,

h4 h5 16llhe l ?!llhg8 17 't!Vc3 gS

Sweden 1977, con t in ued 14 liacl

18 hg fg 19 .ih2 g4 20 f4 lLld7 21

�d7 15 't!Vd l a 5 16 .if3 .ie4 17

.id3 h4, Browne-Speelman, Taxco

.ixe4 'fi'xe4 Ig �d5 life8 19 lHd I

IZ 198S (0-1, 41). Browne suggests 16 �b llldg8 17 b4 gSIHhg fg l 9 .ie3 gives White a small edge -tr. J

12

0-0

b6!?

Also playable is 12 ... aS which has

often

been

t ried

by

the

Hungarian Kaposztas. The text move seems more accurate; Black does nothi ng loosening and first completes

his development. [A

recent example is 12 ... aS 13 lic l b6 14 b3 .ib7 IS .ig3 lifeg 16 lid li.Jd7 17 f3!? 't!VgS Jg .id3 'i!*cS 19

h6 20 lld4 'itc7 21 'fi'c6 ah 22 ab

lLlfi!! 23 liddI lLl c6 24 .ig3 �f6 (JO) ./1!

w

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

� 't!f tA; �it! � � . � ���� � � � �. �:?,)� � � �,, t.J � �If� � fl"l � fffd � )Q, ,.,Qi, � �

�· �

�-'A'} 'H' � ���

w ,,,

�.

z

Unfortunately IM Tom Wcdbcrg

lib! �hH, Korchnoi-Kaposztas,

docs not quote a ny more of his

Berlin 198S. White won a long

game. He only

maintains that

The Bishop Sys rem 4 i/4

26

16

Black stands better. White cannot become active

with c4-cS and

Black is left i n peace to harry the white qucensidc weaknesses after ... lid!:!, and

o o .

0 0 0

lia2,

0 0 .

lida8,

000

rs

�n

Black could also play 16 ...lla7 immediately, followed by 17

0 0 0

llfa!l.

17 18 19

li8a3

lib2.

b) There is also a noteworthy

f3

lla7 llfa8

'Wd4

.liabl

Not 19 bS? ltJcS followed by .. .

an alysis by SchUssler and Wedberg:

14 cS?! de IS be. Acceptance of the

lH8, ...lla!l-e8. The k night has a

pawn sacrifice would s u it White:

dream square on cS.

IS

0 0 0

'ti'xcS? 16 lifc l 'We7 (or

19 20

0 0 0

'ti'd6) 17 it'd regain ing the pawn advant ageously (17

0 0 .

ltJc6 18

�.1'3!). However, Black consistently follows his dark-squared strategy:

ab

_If w

IS ... lifdH! 16'Wc3lldS! 17cb ab 18 life I lieS 19'Wb2llaaS. B lack stands well an d can w i n quickly if White plays carelessly, e.g. 20llc3 ltJg6 21 �g3 hS 22 h3 h4 23 �h2 ligS 24 �f l 1!¥e4 2S f3 'tixf3 26 �xc7 'tixh3 27 �xb6 :!:tabS! 28 llb3 (28 1!¥xbS

lhg2+!) 28 ...

llxg2+! 29 �xg2

Ii.gS 30 lla2

'tie6! etc.

For

reasons

of

tournament

tactics, the players did not tem p t fate in this equal position.

After the text move, the white

1/z-1/z

bishop an ticipates being jos tled by ltJg6. but above all White wants

So after the quiet continuation

to advance his e- and f-pawns. A

6 ltJbd2 Black has no problems.

possible line is 14

Therefore the sharper 6 ltJc3 is

0 0 0

000

h6 IS life!

life!:! 16 e4! (16 .. . �xe4? 17 �f l !

often tried and has provided much

fS Ill f3 �b7 19 f4) 16 ... ltJd7 17

practical material. This continuation

�d3 followed by f4. Even this

is examined in C.

position is not particularly bad for Black, but the text move avoids all such problems.

14 15

Ii.fel

ltJd7 aS

c 4 5 6

ltJf3 ltJc3

ltJc6 �b4+ �xc3+

The Bishop Sysrem 4 i,[4 7

be

1!t'e7 {32)

27

d6

10 II

c3

I I g3 �e4 12 i.g2 �c5 13 1!t'c2 4:la5 14 li.Jd2 �c6 15 � d5 0-0 16

i.e3 c6 17 i.xe6+ 1!t'xc6 18 i. x c5 de 19 c3 't!t'hJ with beuer chances for Black -Schussler and Wedbcrg.

li'Jc4

II Ou r

0-0 (34)

i.c2

12

illustrat ive game No. 9

continues with 13 tl_)d4. One can If Black regains t he pawn on e5 he

can

endi ng on

wonder why Whit e does not pl ay

for a

favourable

the obvious 13 0-0. The an swe r lies

account

of White's

in

play

the excelle nt analysis of the

pawn weaknesses. Therefore t he

Swedish mast ers in the magazine

continu ation is prac t ically forced.

Schucknyll:

8

't!t'dS

f6

There is no time for 8 .

. .

0-0

because of 9 h3.

9

ef

�xf6

Three retreats come into con­ sideration:

Cl 10 1!t'd3 C2 I 0 1!t'd2 C3 10 'ftdl Cl 10 U B

.

1!t'd3 (33)

13

0-0

.i.g4!

It f11s in with Black\ plan Ill exchange mmor pieces (m particular theoishop on c2) for he ca n then set Ill work on the doubled pawn� on the c-lilc.

14

li.d4

On a nv neu t r al move, 'uch a' 14 ilftl l. UIg8 1 9 .ixh4 W'g7 as unclear tr. ] 17 l:lxf3! ! (38) -

18 gf Perhaps White should reluctantly accept the following variation: 1 8 1hf3 J.g4! (much better than 1 8 . . . ttJxd3 1 9 1t'xh5+) 1 9 W'd5 .ie6 20 'ftfJ ttJxd3 2 1 'ftxh5+ 1t'h7 22 W'xh7+ $>xh7 23 l:lcd 1 gh 24 .ixh4 .ixc4. Naturally White stands worse here but in the game he succumbs in a few moves to a fu rious attack by the Yugoslav master. 18 gh 19 .ih2 [Rogers queries this and gives as White's only chance 1 9 .if4 J.h3 20 $>h2 J.xfl 2 1 J.xfl ttJe6 22 1td5 ! - tr. ] 19 �h3 20 'it>hl Ilg8! 21 lilgl lilxgl+

The Bishop System 4 �4 [These moves were all repeated in Lanzani-Rogers, N uoro 1 984, a nd at this point White resigned! ­ tr. ] 22 'i!t'xgl 22 �xg l 'irg7+ 23 .ig3 hg is even worse for White. lL\xd3 22 23 lii: d l 1!t'f7 24 .tr4 O r 24 f4 \Wxc4 threatening 'tie4+. li:ld4 24 25 gr \Wxf4 As B lack wins quite sadistically after 26 lii:d 3 li:le5 27 lii:e 3 b6 28 1te I .ie6, W hite prefers the end with horror to the horror without end. 26 1fg6 1t'xf3+ \Wxdl 27 'it>h2 28 1tf6+ �g8 0- 1 The Bulgarian GM could now convi nce hi mself that the black king wanders to d7. Then diagonal checks are prevented by the bishop on h3 and check on the

Jl

seventh ran k can be parried b y . . . li:le7. Summary After the moves I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:lg4 4 iJ4 the Bishop System arises. Black is well advised first of all to leave the bishop on f4 in peace. As we have seen in A, 4 . . . g5? irrevocably wea kens one's own position. Pieces can return after an u nsuccessful excu rsion, but pawns cannot. The best method is 4 ... li:lc6 5 li:lf3 .ib4+. After 6 li:lbd2 the d­ file is blocked, so the white queen cannot hurry to the help of the pawn on e5. Black then plays 6 . . . 1!t'e7 and regains the sacrificed pawn with a satisfactory game. A fter 6 li:lc3 White can i ndeed hold the pawn on e5 but only at the cost of shattered pa wns on the c-file. Subsequently Black plays . . . f6, accepting to play on a pawn down, but he gets compensation for this in pressure on the e- and f-files.

3

The Alekhine System 1 2 3 4

d4 c4 de e4 (39)

ltJf6 e5 ltJg4

4 e4

some variations dark-square weak­ nesses can arise in White's camp. It is generally considered a rule in this system t hat exchange of dark­ squared bishops is favourable for Blac k . Black c a n protect t he attacked k night (4 . . . h5), continue in gambit style (4 . . . d6) or recapture on e5 (4 . . . ltJxe5). The main possibilities are: A 4 h5 8 4 d6 5 ed C 4 d6 5 .ie2 D 4 ltJxe5 5 f4 ltJg6 E 4 ltJxe5 5 f4 ltJec6 Other continuations: a) 4 'it'h4?? 5 g3 1Wh5 6 .ie2 d6 7 h3 winning a piece. ltJ xf2?? 5 'it>xf2 1Wh4+ 6 g3 b) 4 't!fxe4 7 lLlf3 .ic5+ 8 'it>g2 and after ltJc3 followed by ltJd5 White is winn ing. c) U ntes ted here is 4 .ib4+ after which White must find the best of three possible continuations: c I) 5 lLlc3 ltJxe5 6 f4 ltJg6 transposes to D . .•.

...

... ...

In the first chapter White pro­ tected the accepted gambit pawn by 4 ltJf3 and in the second chapter by another method 4 .if4. In both cases Black regained the gambit pawn. In the Alekhine system White returns the booty im mediately and st n ves for superiority in the cen tre. The White pawn structure e4/c4 assures Wh ite a strong point on d5, but his light-squared bishop is somewhat li mited in mobility. I n

...

...

...

...

The A lek hine System 4 e4

33

c2) 5 i.d2 i.xd2+ 6 tfxd2 lLl xe5 7 tfc3 '*ke7 ( 7 ... lLl bc 6 8 f4 wins the

continued pressure against f2. I t

pawn on g7) with a good game fo r

i s t h t: refort: natural to drive t h e

of the move ... h 5, namely the

Blac k . 8 f4 now gets White into

k n ight o n g 4 away. Late r in t h t:

difficulties (8 ... lLlg6 9 tfxg7?

game ... h5 will prove a weaknt:ss

1!Vxe4+) and aftt:r the plausible

on B lack' s kingside. For exa mplt: ,

continuation 8 lLl d2 0-0 9 i.t:2

short castling is tt:mporarily pre­

lLlbc6 10 lbgf3 d6 I I 0-0 f5 Black is

vented. Now:

active. Remember the abow rule

A I 5 h3

referring to t h e exchange of dark­

A2 5 i.e2

squared bishops.

c3) 5 lLld2 lLlxe5 6 a3 seems t o be favourable for White. 6 ... i.xd2+

7 i.xd2 followed by 8 i.c3 is obviously advantageous for White and after 6 ... i.e7 (6 ... i.c5 7 lLlb3) 7 lLlb3 or 6 ... i.e7 7 f4 lLlec6 (7 . .. lLlg6) 8 llJdf3 followed by ..id3 and llJe2 White is better developed. A

4

h5? ! (40)

AI

h3

5

Game I I Ahues-H elling

Berlin 1 932-33

�

( I d4 llJ f6 2 c4 e5 3 de llJg4 4 t:4 h 5

h3

llJxe5

6

i.e3

i. b4+

7

llJd2

f5

Later this move was quitt: rightly criticised, t h ough Black also stands

40 w

worse after

other moves. ECO

me nti ons 7 ... b6 but after H 't!fbJ i.e7 9 0-0-0 i.b7 10 f4 li1gt1 I I lLlgiJ lLlc6 12 c5 ! Wh ite st:.trHh bet t er, e.g. 12 .. . 0-0

U

"t!t"d 5 1

followt:d b y "iWxh5 o r 12 . . . II bS 13 tfcJ 0-0 14 g4 ' .

8 9 10

aJ

:ii... e 7

"i!t'b3 0-0-0

[ija6

This move contains some traps.

II

cS!

li' xeS

For exam ple 5 llJ IJ �c5 or 5 f4'!

12

�xeS

i.c5 6 lLlhJ lLl c6 ( 7 i.e2? '*kh4+)

U

li IC�

� gS +

14

�hi

IS

lLl xe5

ti'e7 ifxeS

are good for Blac k.

We see here the only advantage

d6 de

34

The A lekhine Sys1em 4 e4 16

on account of the following move order: 4 e4 d6 5 .i.e2 and only now 5 . . . h5. After 5 ..ie2 Black has two possibilities: A21 5 ... ..ic5 A22 5 d6

li:lf3 (41)

...

A21 5

Black is lost . 16 . 1!t'xe4+ fails to 1 7 �d3 e.g. 17 . . . 1!t'f4 Ill g3 1!t'xf3?? 19 �b5+ foll owed by 20 1!t'xf3. 16 1!t'e7 1 7 ef ..ixf5+ Ill ..id3 ..ixd3 t- 19 1!t'xd3 threatening 1!t'g6+ and il he I + is completely hopeless for Blac k . There o n l y remains 1 6 . . 1!t'f6 1 7 ..id3 (here 1 7 ef ..i xf5+ 1 8 ..i d 3 would n o t be so good because o f 1 8 . . . 0-0-0; t h e queen being on fti rather than e7 protects the bishop on f5) 1 7 . . . f4 1 8 e5 1!t'h6 (other­ wise ..igti+) 19 ..ie4 ..ieti ( 19 . . . c6 20 lid6; 19 . . . libll 20 'tWa4+ followed by 1!t'xa7) 20 1lrb5 + ! c6 21 't!Vxb7 0-0 22 lid6 liaell 23 t!¥xc6 threatening li:lxg5 fol lowed by llxe6 a nd if 23 . . . ..idll 24 lixe6 followed by .idS . ..

...

.

A2 5 .i.c2 After 4 . . . h5, 5 h3 is good enough but one must also examine 5 .i.e2

..ic5

Game 1 2 Golombek-Tartakower Birmingham 195 1 ( I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e 5 3 de li:lg4 4 e4 h5 5 ..ie2 �c5) 6 li:lh3 6 .i.xg4 1!t'h4! 7 g3 1!t'xg4 ll 1!t'xg4 hg gives Black superb play for the pawn on accou nt of the open h-file and the light-square weak nesses in White's posi tion. 8 f3 't!re6 9 f4 d6 a nd later . . . h4 also gives Black excellent chances. 6 lll x c5 7 .i.g5 ..ie7 On 7 . . . f6 White natu rally plays not ll .i.xh5+ because of ll . . . g6. bu t 8 ..id2 h4 9 ..ic3 and sub­ sequently li:lf4, as in the game. 8 ..ixe7 1!t'xe7 It is true that the excha nge of the dark-squared bishops is pleasant for Black but here this plus has been bought at some price in view of the perma nent wea k ness at h5 and the loss of te mpo ..ic5-e7 . 9 0-0 d6

The A lekhine Sysum 4 e4 c6 I 0 lLlf4 II ll::J c3 After the risky conti nuat ion I I ll::J x h 5'? ! g6 1 2 ll::J g 3 Wh4 1 3 h3 Black has a strong attack on the h­ file. If he wants he ca n even force a draw by 1 3 . . . i.xh3 1 4 gh \!t'xh3 1 5 lie I ..Wh2+ 1 6 'i!; fl \!t'h3+ etc II i.g4 r3 i.d7 12 Black has been able to save his pawn on h5 and control the square d5 but these measures have cost him time. White has a great space advantage. b6 13 \!t'b3 14 \!t'a3 Setting his sights on the weakness on d6. lih6 14 \!t'f6 IS b3 16 \!t'cl ll::J a6 0-0-0 (42) 17 lidl

1 8 lLlbS! This kn ight is im mune: 1 8 ... cb 1 9 cb+ tt:\c5 ( 19 . . . liJc7'!? 20 liJd5) 20 lLld5 'i!fe6 21 b4. White regains

35

the pietake in a superior position. 20 li:ld 3 ! would have maintained the advantage , e.g. 20 . . . g4 2 1 lLl f5 lig6 22 f4 with a clear advantage to White. 20 �4! 21 lLl fS lig6 22 lilf4 �f! 23 't!¥a3 fe 24 't!¥x a6+ \.t>b8 25 li:he2 \!t'gS 26 g3 ..W�4 27 cS bS 28 ll::J c3 h4 29 li xd6 lidxd6 30 cd hg 31 li:l xg3 li:lf3+ 32 '-&>f2 li'l xh2 33 tt:\ce2 ..Wf3+ 34 \t>e I 1hg3 35 'ifaS l!lb7 The bla..: k king !lees from the th reat of tic 7+ followed by \!t'c8 mate. 36 �c7+ \t>a6 37 �c8+ was 38 \!t'c 7+ \!tb4?? Time-trouble. 37 . . . �ao leads to a d raw by pe rpetual check . 39 a3+ 'i!;cS If 39 . . . 'i!.>xbJ 40 liJd4+ fo rks

36

The Alekhine System 4 e4

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

A22 5 d6 ..txd6 6 ed lt:\c6 7 lt:\f3 8 lt:\c3 ..te6 9 h3 lt:\ge5 Christofferson-Stahlberg, Sweden 1928. White now con tinued 1 0 lt:\xe5 a n d after I 0 . . . lt:\xe5 I I ..te3 lt:\xc4 ( I I . . . .ixc4?? 1 2 .ixc4 lt:\xc4 1 3 'it'a4+) 1 2 .ixc4 .ixc4 1 3 'it'd4 .ie6 1 4 'irxg7 �d7 1 5 0-0-0 stood clearly better. Summary

Black must now give up his queen as it is lost anyway, but only for a knight, after 41 . . . 'it>e6 42 lt:\d4+, while 41 . . . 'it>e5?? leads to mate after 42 'tlre7+. 41 'tlrd3 li: xd3+ li: xd3 42 43 �b8+ 'it>e7 44 1!Vxh1 li:xb3 45 'it'e5+ 'it>Ill 46 lt:\d4 li:bl+ 47 \t>d1 ..td7 48 't!¥d6+ \t>e8 49 lt:\xc6 ..txc6 50 'it'xc6 + �Ill \t>c1 51 li:e 1 li:xe4 52 't!¥xb5 a4 1 -0 53 This game: "ti pped over" twice as a result of the mistakes on moves 20 and 3M, but from the point of view of opening theory it was convincing enough.

4 . . . h5 is not a good continuation. Both 5 h3 and 5 .ie2 give White the adva ntage. More complicated is 4 . . . d6 which is t he t heme of the next two sections. B 4 5

ed

d6 .ixd6 (44)

44 w

6 .tel With superficial moves White

The Alekhine System 4 e4 ca n get a disadvantage, e.g. 6 lLlf3'! ..ic5 ! 7 'ff x d8+ 'it>xd8, when Black regains the pawn and stands better. rs 6 The alternative is 6 . . . li:lf6. Rishkin-Kazantsev, USSR 1 954, continued 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 lLlf3 ..ib4 9 'it'c2 ..ixc3+ 1 0 be lle8 I I e5 li:lg4 1 2 ..if4 lLlc6 1 3 lld l 't!t'e7 14 lld5 ..ie6 1 5 h3! lLlh6 ( 1 5 . . . ..ixd5?? 1 6 hg threatening 'ffx h7+ and 'ff h 8 mate; 1 5 . . . li:lgxe5 16 Ii: xe5 with great advantage for White) 1 6 0-0! ..ixd5? (a mistake in the worse position) 1 7 cd lLla5 1 8 li:lg5 g6 1 9 lLle4 'it>g7 20 ..ig5 'ffd 7 2 1 't!t'd2 lLlg8 ( 2 1 . . . lLl f5 22 ..if6+ and g4) 22 lLlf6 1 -0. Black has no good defence to the mating attack li:lxg8, ..if6+ and 1!t'h6. 'ffe7 7 er The starting point of two im­ portant games. Game 1 3 Capablanca-Tartakower Bad Kissingen / 928 ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:lg4 4 e4 d6 5 ed ..ixd6 6 ..ie2 f5 7 ef 1!t'e7) Jose Raoul Capablanca, World Champion 1 92 1 -27, was fa mous, above all, for his fa ntastic tech­ nique in si mple positions. He liked to avoid unclear complications. Here there was the opportunity, adm ittedly at the cost of the op­ ponent's initiative, to win a piece: 8 c5 ..ixc5 9 'tlra4+ li:lc6 10 'it'xg4.

37

We will see the consequences of this piece sacrifice in the next ga me. I n this game Capablanca continued q uietly: 8 lLlrJ ..ixf5 9 ..igS lLlf6 I 0 li:lc3 lLlc6 II lLldS W'n 12 0-0 0-0-0 lLl xd4 1 3 li:ld4 1 4 'ffx d4 c6? c 5 1 5 't!t'h4 Better was 1 4 li:lxd5 1 6 cd ( 16 ..ixd8? ltJf4 ! ) 1 6 . . . llde8 as given by Euwe i n his book on Capablanca. 1 5 ..ixf6 gf (45) I n the above-ment ioned work Euwe now gives 16 't!t'xa 7 ! cd 1 7 cd with the possibi lities: a) 17 ... 1!t'xd5 18 Ii: fd l 1!t'e5 1 9 llac I + �d7 2 0 'ffx b7+ 'it>e8 2 1 ..ih5+ wins. b ) 17 ... ..ib8 18 Ii:ac l + 'it>d 7 1 9 'it'c3 llc8 2 0 ..ib5+ 'it>d8 2 1 'ffb6+ ..ic7 22 Ii:xc7 and wins ( n . . 1 hc 7 23 d 6 ; 2 2 . . . tt' x c 7 2J 't!t'xf6+ ). c ) 17 . . . h 1 lLlc6 b3) 8 .ixc3+ 9 be 1!Vf6 1 0 1!fd2 li::Jd 7 followed by . . . lDc5. ...

...

D2 6

.ie3 (57)

White prevents 6 . . . .ic5. .ib4+ 6 7 li::Jc 3 7 li::Jd 2 is not good on account of 7 . . . 1!Ve7 8 11t'c2 (the natural protection 8 .id3 fails here to 8 . . . 'trd6! w i t h a surprising w i n o f a pawn - Steiner) 8 . . . li::J c6 9 liJgfJ b6 with a good game for Black G rtinfeld, e.g. 1 0 a3 .ic5 't; 1 0 .id3 .ic5 1 1 .ixc5 11t'xc5 1 2 g3 1!fe3+ 't; 1 0 g3 .ib7 1 1 .ig2 .ic5 .ixc3+ 7 8 be b6!? A n i nteresting alternative to the possible variation 8 . . . 1!fe7 9 .id3 f5 1 0 'itc2 fe I I .ixe4 li::J xf4 1 2 .ixf4 d5 1 3 cd .if5 winning back the piece in a game Meier-Griinfeld. 9 .id3 =.

9 11t'd5? li::J c 6 and W hite's queen is soon exposed. 9 .ib7 10 li::J f3 d6 li::J d7 0-0 11 with level chances. White can never play f5 because of the square e5. I f White does nothing active, there follows . . . 0-0, . . . JileS and . . . lDc5 with pressure against White's centre. Heim-Schroder, 1 96 7, continued sharply 1 2 e5 de 1 3 .ixg6 ( 1 3 fe? .ixf3 1 4 1fxf3 li::J d xe5) 1 3 . . . hg 1 4 fe 1t'e7 1 5 .ig5 1t'c5+ 1 6 1!Vd4 li::Jf8 1 7 'trxc5 be 1 8 lilab I .ia6 1 9 li::Jd 2 lDe6 20 .if4 ( 20 .ie3 lilh5) 20 . . . 0-� 2 1 lilb2 lild3 and Black wen t on to win. The rest of the game is u nfortunately unavailable, but there is no doubting Black's advantage. This game fragment does not provide enough evidence to make a correct assessment of 8 . . . b6, but this plan certainly deserves fu rther investigation . If it does not hold good, Black still has the example Meier-Griinfeld (see note to Black's 8th) to fall back on. Summary 5 . . . li::J g6 is probably playable. Black has more problems in the variation 6 liJO. In both variations (6 liJO and 6 .ie3) Black must play 6 . . . .ib4+. In the opinion of the Swedish IMs and Budapest experts Harry

The A lekhine Syslem 4 e4 Schiissler and Tom Wedberg, Black has an easier task if he decides o n 5 . . . ll:\ec6. This i s t h e subject of the last section of the Alekh ine system.

47

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

E 4 5

f4

ll:\xeS ll:\ec6 (58)

Here the black k n ight is not exposed. Furthermore, black holes have appeared in W hite's camp (particularly d4). I n our first illus­ trative game the Soviet GM over­ looked this hole and only narrowly avoided defeat. G ame 1 7 Vaganian-Wedberg Buenos A ires OJ 1978 ( I d4 ll:\f6 2 c4 e5 3 de ll:\g4 4 e4 ll:\xe5 5 f4 ll:\ec6) .icS 6 ll:\f3 d6 7 ll:\c3 aS (59) 8 .id3 A m ulti-purpose move. It con­ trols b4 (countering an eventual a3 and b4) a nd the bishop on c5

9 h3 White does something about . . . .ig4. I M Minev does not like 9 h 3 and cites the fol lowing variation: 9 1t'e2 .ig4 I0 .ie3 ll:\d4 I I 'tif2 .ixf3 1 2 .ixd4! with advantage to White (Wedberg). However, instead of I I . . . .ixf3?, I I . ll:\e6!? comes strongly into consideration ( 1 2 h 3? ll:\xf4 ! ; 1 2 0-0? ll:\xf4 ! ; 1 2 .ixc5 de!? threatening the bishop on d3 and the pawn on f4). Also after 1 2 g3 ll:\c6 Black has a satisfactory game. It was probably just this variation that White wanted to avoid a nd therefore played 9 h3. 9 ll:\a6 .ie6 10 ll:\dS 11 a3 I I .ie3 .ixd5! 1 2 .ixc5 .ixe4 with advantage to Black - Wedberg. 11 0-0 H o w should White get castled? 1 2 .ie3 is again refuted by 1 2 . . . .ixd5 and the preparatory 1 2 1!re2 . .

48

The Alekhine System 4 e4

(still to play .i.e3) is answered by 1 2 . . . ll:e8 after which White is in danger on the c-fi le ( 1 3 .i.e3 f5 ! 1 4 0 -0 .i.xd5 1 5 c d fe wins). .i.xd5 12 f5 13 cd lDe5 14 lDxe5?! Relatively better was 14 .i.f4 (Wedberg) though Black still stands somewhat better: 1 4 . . . lD xO+ 1 5 'Wxf3 .i.d4 1 6 0-0-0 1ff6 1 7 litd2 g5! with a dark-squared blockade and use of e5 (Plan: ... lDc5-d7). 1fh4+ 14 de 1 5 �d2 1 6 �c2 .td4 c6 1 7 litO d6 18 If 1 8 de litfc8 with an attack. lilc5 18 litfdB f6 19 20 fg (60)

lit xd6? 20 Correct now was 20 . . . lDxd3! 2 1 1fxd3 (2 1 1ff3? lDf2! wins) 2 1 . . . litxd6 with great, if not already decisive, advantage for Black, e.g.

22 .i.d2 (with the trap 22 ... .i.xb2?? 23 1ff3) 22 . . . "f/e7 23 tro f6 followed by . . . 1hg7, . . . �h8 and . .. litg8. Black would then have a healthy extra pawn, a dominating bishop on d4 and pressure on the g- and d-files, while White cannot do much on the f-file. lit d7 21 1ff3 Or 2 1 . . . 'tlfe7 22 .tc4!. B lack should have taken this resuscitated bishop earlier. 1re7 22 g3! But not 22 . . . 1fxh3?? 23 .tc4! (threatening to t ra p the queen by lith 1 ) 23 . . . lite7 24 lith I 1fd7 25 1fh5 and W hite wins. lilxe4! 23 .tc4 24 .td3! The only move. 24 11he4 1fc5 25 11re2 b5 leads to the loss of the attacking bishop and Black is run­ ning matters again. lOgS 24 Intending to refute the sally 25 1fh5 by 25 . . . e4! (26 .txg5 ed+ 27 Wb l 11re6 etc). 1fxg5 25 .txg5 't!fxg7 26 h4 27 litael �hB litgB 28 lite4 29 1ff5 Now 29 . . . lite7 30 lilg4! 1fh6! was indicated ( Wedberg) and Black could still have played for a win. I n time trouble he committed a grave error. 29 litd6??

The A lekhine Sy.l'tem 4 e4 �xf7 �xf7 l:ig7 l hf7 :iil g8 :iil f8+ :iil f7 1/z-1/z 33 . . . l:ih6 34 l:ixb 7 :iil xg3 35 i.c 4 ( i f 35 . . . l:ih 5?? 36 l:ig4; but on the other hand Whi te threaten� l:ibll+ followed by l:ig!H and l:ixg3) so Wedberg opted to repeat moves. 30 31 32 33

Summary Black stood well out of the opening. 6 ltJf3 al lowing 6 . . . i.c5 is not so good as W h i te has problems with castling. It is natural to prevent 6 . . . i.c5 by 6 i.e3 and this is the main variation of t h is section. First we will look briefly at another apparen tly harmless, but really quite dangerous, move.

El 6

a3!? (61)

A trap. After 6 . . . .ic5?! 7 b4! .ixg l H lbg I 'tth 4+ (relatively

49

b e t t e r is M . . . 0-0 but t he n B l ac k has n o co mpensa tion fo r the los� u f t h e bi s h o p pai r ) 9 g3 'ilt'xh2 1 0 lig2

�h I I I i.b2 Wh ite has po werfu l compensation for the sac r i ficed pawn . 6 aS 7 xd .!Lla6 Black fol l ows t he typical d a r k ­ squa red s t r a t eg y of t he Buda pest G a m bit and wants to exchange the bishop on e3. White can hardly prevent this, e.g. 8 't!t'd 5? b6 9 lil f3 i.b7 1 0 i.d3 ltJc5! and Black stands clearly better ( I I .ic2 li:lb4 1 2 �d2 ltJxc2+ 1 3 �xc2 .ixe4; I I .ixc5 .ixc5). The queen move to d5, as al most always in this gambit, does not work out well. 8 �Jc3 xeS 9 �d2 Worse is 9 i.xc5 ltJxc5 as Black can later fix the hole on b3 by . . . a4. 9 d6 I 0 ltJf3 0-0 II i.d3 lle8 {62)

50

The A lekhine System 4 e4

with a roughly equal game, e.g. 1 2 0-0 .i.xe3+ 1 3 1!he3 lLlc5 1 4 .i.c2 a4 1 5 llae l .i.e6! ( 1 5 . . . f6? ! 1 6 t!Vf2 .i.g4 1 7 lLld4 11fd7 1 8 lLld5 wins - K moch ) 16 lLld5 ( 1 6 t!Ve2 lLla 5 ! ) 1 6 . . . lLla5 with complicated play, e.g. 17 'itc3 f6 1 8 lLld4 .i.f7 followed by 19 . . . c6. The attack 1 9 lLlf5 c 6 2 0 t!Vg3 is easily parried by 20 . . . .i.g6. S umma ry Black's counterplay in this variation is based on the weaknesses b3 and c4 in White's position, brought about by the premature advance a2-a 3 . We now pass on to the main variation which forgoes interpol­ ating the moves 6 a3 a 5 . E2 6

.i.e3 (63)

possibilities: a) 7 �1'2 lLla6 8 a3 (8 lLlc3 .i. xc3 9 be leads to the main variation with the 'gift' tempo �f2) 8 . . . .i.c5 and now: a I ) 9 b4? t!Vf6! wins material. a2) 9 .i. xcS lLlxc5 10 'ttc 2 'ttf6 is in Black's favour. a3) 9 t!Vd2 'ttf6 1 0 g3 .i.xe3+ I I xe3 lLlc5 1 2 1!rc3 1!re7 1 3 .i.g2 0-0 is good for Black on account of the bad position of the white king. Black plans 14 . . . a5 and if 14 b4 then 14 . . . lLle6 followed by ... a 5 ! . b) 7 lLld2 'ith4+ 8 g 3 t!Ve7 a n d here ECO quotes two practical examples: b I ) 9 .i.g2 a5 10 lLle2 lLla6 I I 0-0 d6 1 2 lLlb3 .i.g4 1 3 h3 .i.xe2 1 4 t!Vxe2 a4 was Pomar-Heidenfeld, Enschede 1 963. b2) 9 trO lLla6 1 0 0-0-0 lLlc5 I I .i.xc5 .i.xc5 1 2 lLlb3 d6 1 3 lLle2 f5 1 4 lLlxc5 de 1 5 e5 0-0 (followed by . . . .i.e6 and ... litad8) Visier­ O'Kelly, Malaga 1967, with equality in both cases. We now examine the following variations i n examples from tour­ nament practice: E21 7 ... d6 E22 7 ... 1re7 E23 7 trh4+ •..

White prevents the developmen t o f t h e enemy bishop on c 5 , so another square presents itself. .tb4+ 6 7 lLlc3 White has two other significant

Garne t S Chebotayev-Machkin USSR 1 968 ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLlg4 4 e4 lt!xe5 5 f4 lLlec6 6 .te3 .tb4+)

The A lekhine System 4 e4

7 lt:lc3 d6 8 'tlt'c2 lt:la6 9 0-0-0 i.g4 1 0 i.e2 i.xe2 11 lt:lgxe2 't!t'c8 1 2 lt:lg3 i.cS 1 3 i.xcS lt:l xcS 14 eS de I S lt:lfS lt:le6 16 fe lt:lxeS? Too opti mistic. 16 . . 0-0 was i ndica ted , followed by . . . 't!t'e8 and . . . l:ld8. Black certainly has a passive position here. f6 17 l:lhel 1 8 lt:le4 By grabbing the pawn on e5 Black has forfeited the possibility of castling - e7 is n ot protected. 18 �f8 lt:ln 1 9 'tlt'f2 20 lt:lcS lt:lxcS 2 1 't!t'xcS+ ll:ld6 22 Il xd6 ! cd 23 't!t'xd6+ �n 24 1!re7+ �g6 25 1lt'xg7+ �xfS 26 g4+ �f4 27 11t'xf6+ 1-0 The set-up with 7 . . . d6 brought Black quite a passive position, mainly because this move does nothing about White's centre. I n the next game Black immediately exerts pressure against the white pawn on e4.

51

G ame l9 Alekhine-Seitz Hastings 1 925-26 ( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:lg4 4 e4 lt:l xe5 5 f4 lt:lec6 6 i.e3 i.b4+) 7 lt:lc3 1We7 (64) 64 w

.

In comparison wit h ga me 1 8 , Black reacts much better here , im mediately eyeing the pawn on e4. 8 i.d3? fS? But not like this! A rule of thumb: pressure on the e-pa.-.·n must be conducted with pieces! Better was 8 . . . i.xc3+ 9 be lt:la6 I 0 'tlt'f3 lt:lc5 I I i.c2 b6 followed by . . . i.b7 and . . . 0-0-0. We will see a similar idea in improved form in the next game. 9 't!t'hS+! A far-sighted manoeuvre. The a l -h8 diagonal is weakened by the forced . . . g6 and the bishop on e3 will subsequently do great deeds there (see AJekhine's note to Black's 1 6th move).

52

The A lekhine System 4 e4

g6 9 .ixe3+ 10 't!¥f3 fe? be 11 Somewhat better was I I . . d6 though White still has more of the game after 1 2 lt:\e2 0-0 1 3 lt:\g3 lt:\a6 14 0-0 .id7 15 l:l:ab l . 0-0 1 2 .ixe4 �h8 13 .idS+ 14 lt:\h3 d6 15 0-0 .ixh3 16 't!¥xh3 'ffd 7 Alekhine gives the following variation : 16 . . . lt:ld7 1 7 llae l 1Wg7 1 8 f5 g5 19 llb I llab8 20 f6 lt:lxf6 2 1 .ixc6 be 22 llxb8 l:l:xb8 23 .id4 l:l:f8 24 'i!fe6 and wins. 17 f5! (65) .

65 B

The decisive move. After 1 7 . . . llxf5 1 8 g4! l:l:xfl + 1 9 l:l:xfl White's attack wins, e.g. 19 . . . •g7 2 0 .ih6; 1 9 . . . 1re7 2 0 l:l: f7 ; 1 9 . . . lt:\d8 2 0 .id4+ etc. gf 17 18 l:l:ab l ! White wants t o provoke . . . b6 which weakens the position of the

k night on c6. This idea is made clear i n the following variation given by Kotov: 18 . . . b6 19 ll be I (threatening 20 .ih6 followed by 2 1 l:l:xf5 ) 1 9 . . . lt:\a6 20 .ixc6 'ttx c6 2 1 .id4+ �g8 22 1!t'g3+ etc. I n a very bad position Black tries to relieve the pressure by exchanging queens. 18 f4 1 9 .ixf4 'ti'xh3 20 .i.e5+! 1-0 If 20 . . . lt:\xe5 2 1 l:l:xf8+ �g7 22 l:l:g8+ �h6 23 gh wins. Karl Gilg, a Czechoslovak master of German origin who settled in West Germany after the second World War, tried an interesting improvement in the last game of this sectio n. He was able to equalise convinci ngly. Though G ilg finally lost this game, one should not forget that his oppo­ nen t, Paul Keres, was one of the greatest chess personalities of the 20th century. G ame 20 Keres-Gilg Prague 1 937 ( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:\g4 4 e4 lt:\xe5 5 f4 lt:\ec6 6 .i.e3 .ib4+) 7 lt:\e3 1i'h4+ ! Similar to Alekhine's manoeuvre in the previous game. Here too the queen check is bound to weaken a

The A lekhine System 4 e4 diagonal and thus increase the effectiveness of the queen's bishop. It is obvious that Black will sub­ sequently develop his bishop on this diagonal at b7. .txc3+ 8 g3 'ti'e7 be 9 1 0 i.d3 After 1 0 ..ig2 Black obtains a satisfactory game with 1 0 . . . b6, e.g. I I lLJe2 i.b7 1 2 0-0 �a6 followed by . 0-0-0 and . . . lbc5. lLJa6 10 1 1 .tc2! �c5 with 1 2 To answer I I .

.

1t'd5. b6 11 �c5 1 2 �f3 13 0-0! The pawn is poisoned: 1 3 . . . li:lxe4? 1 4 .txe4 1t'xe4 1 5 .txb6! followed by Jle I. i.b7 13 14 0-0 e5 -0 15 lLJd4 (66) 66 8

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

53

makes the square rs inaccessible to the white k night and prepares something active such as . . . f6, . . . d6 or . . . �a S . The game con tinuation i s risky a nd White assumes the i nitiative . ts r6? 16 �rs 'ttfl 1 7 ..id4 g6 18 �e3 re 19 re 1!Vh6 20 �d5 li:le6 21 1!Vd3 l:thfl 22 l:tr6 According to Vasconsellos i n "Staker" Black could equalise here with 22 . . . �cxd4 23 cd i.xd5 24 l:txf8 l:txf8 25 cd �g5 26 l:tfl �h3+ 27 �g2 l:txfl 28 �xf l . The author cannot agree with this j udgement. This ending is better for White who can continue, for example, with i.b3 and e6. 22 1fh5 23 lite I li:lcxd4 24 cd i.xdS (6 7) 67 w

Apparently 22 . . . 1rh5 has turned

54

The A lekhine System 4 e4

out all right for Black, e.g. 25 cd lhf6 26 ef \!fxd5 or 25 lhf8 l hf8 26 cd ltJg5. However, there now follows a surprise: i.xc4 25 i.d1 ! If Black moves his queen, White plays llxf8 fol lowed by cd. The square f3, in contrast to the previous variation, would then be firmly in White's hands. 26 \!fxc4 'irgS 'it>b8 27 i.f3 28 'irdS c6

'it>b7 29 1rd6+ 30 lhf8 llxf8 Or 30 . lDxf8 3 1 e6! lLlxe6 32 lhe6! w i ns a piece as 32 ... de allows 3 3 1hc6+ 'it>a6 34 'ira4 mate. 31 'ti'xd7+ lLlc7 32 'irxc6+ 1 -0 Despite this loss (to a world­ class player! ) Karl G ilg's idea , now almost fifty years old, still deserves consideration. .

.

4

Rare Systems

lt:lf6 d4 I eS c4 2 lt:lg4 3 de The rare systems are divided i nto two groups: A White protects the pawn on e5 by various moves apart from 4 lt:lf3 and 4 i.f4, which were examined in the first two chapters. B Other moves. A White's other means of protect­ i ng the pawn on e5 are: A I 4 f4 A2 4 't!rd4 A3 4 1idS AI 4 6H B

f4? (68)

4 .tcS This creates confusion in White's camp. Now 5 e3 lt:lxe3 6 i.xe3 i.xe3 is clearly better for Black . d6 s lt:lh3 6 ed cd 7 e4 0-0 8 lt:lc3 lle8 Black has splendid play for t he sacrificed pawn , e.g. 9 i.d3 't!t'h4+ 10 �d2 lt:le3 I I 't!t'e2 i.g4 or 9 g3 lt:lc6 I 0 i.d3 't!t'f6 I I lt:ld5 ( I I i.d2 't!Vh6! ) I I . . . 't!t'h6 ! and Black wins, e.g. 1 2 lLlc7 't!rxh 3 1 3 lt:l xe 8 't!t'g2 1 4 l H I lt:lf2 ( 1 5 't!rd2 i.b4 ; 1 5 'ft'c2 lt:lb4; 1 5 'ft'e2 i.g4; 1 5 'ft'b3 lt:la5 1 6 'ft'c3 i.b4 ). The variation 4 f4? is bad. White loses time and weakens t he diagonal g 1-a 7. A2 4 't!t'd4?! (69) With this move White not only defends the pawn on e5 but at t he same time attacks the knight on g4. Therefore 4 't!Vd4 does not lack a cenain logic ; it is in teresting to note that this move is played by many chess computers.

56

Rare Systems game.

69 B

However it has one disadvantage: the queen is exposed on d4 and really invites the win of a tempo with . . . ltJc6. First, though, some­ thing must be done about saving the k night on g4. G ame 2 1 Laszlo-Abonyi Budapest 1 933 ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLlg4) d6 4 'ird4 ed 5 Or 5 lLlf3 lLlc6 comfortably re­ gaining the pawn on e5 with the win of a tempo as t he white queen m ust move. -'.xd6 5 Naturally . . . -'.b4+ winning the queen is threatened. Snatching another pawn only increases Black's dangerous i nitiative: 6 1We4+ (6 't!rxg7 .i.e 5 ! ) 6 . . . .i.e6 7 't!rxb7 lLld7 tl e3 0-0 9 lLlf3 ltJc5 1 0 Wb5 l:lb8 1 1 'ira 5 (or 1 1 Wc6 l:lb6) I I . . . lLld3+ followed by . . . .i.b4+ or . .- ltJ xf2 - 0- 1 in a computer

6 ltjf3 0-0 7 h3 Black's lead in development is also practically decisive after 7 lLlc3, e.g. 7 . . . lLlc6 8 'ird I -'.c5 9 e3 Wxd l + ! 10 lLlxd l lLlb4. lLlc6 7 8 't!re4 8 Wd I is immediately refuted by 8 . . . lLlxf2! 9 �xf2 ..ig3+ winning the queen. 8 l:le8 9 Wc2 lLlb4 10 Wc3 (70) 70 B

Black has a crushing advantage and could now decide the ga me with 10 . . . lLld3+! ( 1 0 . . . -'.f5 ! also wins) I I 'tixd3 ( I I �d2 .i.b4; I I �d l lLldxf2+) I I . . . ..ib4+ winning the queen after 1 2 �d I lLl xf2+ or 1 2 .i.d2 Wxd3. I n stead of this he chooses an admittedly effective but less power­ ful move: lt:le3?! 10 The i ntruder is i nviolable as 1 1

Rare Systems fe?? allows I I . . �g) male and I I �xeJ Iixe3 1 2 \Wd2 ( 1 2 'tixe3 lLlc2+; 1 2 fe ..ig3 mate) 1 2 . . . lt:ld3+ 1 3 'i!;>d l lt:l xf2+ 1 4 'i!;>e l lt:lxh I wins a rook for Black as the rook on e3 is again taboo ( 1 5 'tixe3?'? �g3+ and mates). Furthermore I I .. . lt:lec2+ is threatened. Therefore White overprotects c2. 1 1 lt:la3 lt:lbc2+ 12 lt:lxc2 ..ib4 (71) .

71 w

57

A3 4

'tidS {72)

Rapid mobilisation of the queen­ side is also the correct method here. lt:lc6 4 5 lt:lf3 5 f4 lLlb4 6 \We4 �c5 7 lt:l h J 0-0 8 lt:lc3 f5 9 ef lLlxf6 1 0 't!fb I d5 I I a3 ltlc6 12 cd lLlxd5 1 3 1!ta2 �e6 with advantage to Black ECO. s d6 White now has two possibilities: A31 6 � gS A32 6 ed -

Nat urally this bishop cannot be taken because of 'ttd I mate or . . . lt:lxc2 mate, but after 1 3 �xeJ �xcJ+ 14 b(.; Wh ite wuld st ill fight. The "great bl u ff' has worked. Clearly demoralised by a series of unexpected moves White resigned. A real curiosity. As far as the variation 4 _.d4 is concerned, the final assessment is that it is not very good as the attacks on the white queen considerably enhance Black's development.

A31 �g5 �e7 �xe7 li'Jxe7 de 'ti'e4 B l a c k s t a n d s well here . 9 lt:J xe S·1 i s the 'Sc hkchter trap' ( na m ed after the A us t r i a n g r a n d masta Carl Schlec h te r ): 9 . ._d I + I I 10 'it>xd I lt:l xf2+ with clear a d v a n t age for Black. 6 7 8

. .

58

Rare Systems

A32

.ie6! 6 ed 7 d7+ (73) Or 7 'fi'd I .ixd6 8 e3 'it'f6 gives Black the advantage ECO; 7 de 'it'xc7 8 'fi'd I .ib4+ 9 .id2 0-0-0 with a strong attack. -

Black gets a good game by attacking the exposed white queen. 8 There are four other moves that occur in practice: 81 4 e3 82 4 lLlc3 83 4 a3 84 4 e6 81 4 e3 lLlxeS 5 lLlf3 lLlbc6 t ra nsposes to Chapter I . 82

.ixd7 7 Black has a big lead in develop­ ment. Staker gives 8 a3 (with the idea of preventing . . . .ib4+ or . . . lLlb4) as good for White, but this is a completely wrong assessment, e.g. 8 . . . 'it'f6 9 lLlc3 (9 'tlt'g5 'it'xg5 1 0 lLlxg5 lLld4 wins) 9 . . .ie6 a nd now: a) 1 0 'iVe4 .ic5 I I e3 0-0-0 followed by . .. llhe8 wins. b) 10 'it'g5 'it'xg5 I I lLl xg5 lLld4 WinS. c) 10 'it'dl .ixc4 I I .ig5 't!fe6 with advantage to Black. d) 10 'ffd3 lLlce5 I I 't!t'e4 ( I I lLlxe5'!! 'ihf2+; I I 'it'c2 .ixc4) I I . . . .ic5 1 2 e3 0-0-0 with excellent co mpensation for the pa wn . I n the 4 1Wd5 variation, too, .

4 lLlc3 lLlxeS 5 e3 followed by 6 lL!f3 trans­ poses to Chapter I or 5 .if4 to Chapter 2. 83 lLlxeS 4 a3 5 b3 g6 6 .ib2 .ig7 7 \!tc2 (otherwise . . . lLldH and . . . .ixb2) 7 . . 0-0 8 lLlc3 (8 e3 d5! threate ning ... .if5) 8 . . . lL!bc6 9 e3 d6 1 0 .ie2 lie8 with a n active position for Black: I I lLlf3 .if5 ! 1 2 e4 lLlxfH 1 3 .ixf3 lLld4 1 4 \!td I ll:lxf3+ 1 5 gf ( 1 5 \!txf3? .ixe4) 1 5 . . . 1Wg5 etc. .

84 4 e6 This deserves closer examin­ ation. According to ECO Black

Rare �"yl·tems

59

eq u a l i se s after 4 . . . de 5 'tixdX+ 'it>xd8 6 .!Llc3 .ic5 7 e3 .id7 8 .ie2 .!Llf6 9 .!Llf3 .!Llc6 10 0-0 a6 1 1 a3 aS 12 b3 'it>e7 This judgement is not in doubt but the resulting position is possibly not to the taste of adherents of the Budapest Gambit. Those who are dissatisfied will lind an interesting suggestion in the following game. =.

G ame 22 Rasin-l vanov USSR 1979 ( 1 d4 .!Llf6 2 c4 e5 3 de .!Llg4) 4 e6 .ib4 + 'tif6 !? s .id2 6 ef+ 'it>xn 7 .!Llf3 White cannot capture the bishop on b4: 7 .ixb4'! '@xf2+ 8 '.!td2 4:le3 followed by . . . .!Llxfl +. 7 '@xb2 8 .ixb4 '@xb4+ 9 .!Lld2 lie8 '@e7 10 e3 II h3 (74) Black has reached a good position and should now continue 1 1 ... .!Llf6, e.g. 12 .id3 d6 13 0-0 .!Llbd7 14 4:lb3 (aimed against . . . .!Llc5) 1 4 . . . a 5 1 5 a4 b6 followed by . . . .ib7, . . . 'it>g8 etc. Black sta nds a little better.

I n t h e ga m e he contin ued badl y : 4:leS? II 'tWxeS 1 2 .!Llxe5+ 1 3 .id3 As Black no longer has t h e i m portant defender. t h e k n ig h t on f6, Wh ite h a s some cham:es o n t h t.: kingside. Black's further play also leaves something to be desired. 13 g6 14 li\c6 0-0 �g 7 IS 'o!l h l 16 libl 4:le7 dS 17 :ilbS cd li:hdS 18 ti'd6 f4 19 'itd8 20 lile4 {z_] f6 ti'a l + 21 :ilf8 22 :ildl 23 .id 7 g4 24 :ildS c.!fg8 :ilxf6 25 li!xf6+ ilxd7 26 1-0

5

Fajarowicz Gambit Introduction 1

2 3

d4 c4 de

ll:Jf6 eS ll:Je4!? (75)

75 w

The idea of this gambit is said to have arisen in Leipzig chess circles. Its international premiere took place in a tournament in Wiesbaden 1 928, in a game between H .Steiner and Fajarowicz. As we will see in Chapter 7, White fell into an almost lost position xe2 ..ixB+ 20 1!fxh2+ gf 2 1 'it>n llad8 0-1 White has no satisfactory defence to the numerous threats: 22 ll xd8 ll xd8 followed by ... lld2 or (after 23 li:lb I ) . . . li:ld3; 22 llg2 t!t'h I + ; 22 lle I lld2; 22 li:lb I li:lc2 etc . .

his queen to f5 where it can control important squares such as d3 and h5. ed ..ixd6 8 9 e3 li:lb4 1 0 't!rc3 't!t'fS! This tactic is also standard: I I 1!hb4?'? naturally fails to . . . li:ld3+ and ... bb4+. Furthermore, Black gets the upper hand after I I 't!rxg7 ltJc2+ 1 2 'it'd I llffi, e.g. 1 3 li:ld4 ltJxd4 followed by . . . li:le6 win ning a piece or 1 3 li:lh4 'ifxf2 with a clear advantage. 11 ltJa3 0-0 Threatening 1 2 . . . li:le4 winning a piece. l:le8 12 ..ih4 13 lldl The plausi ble variation 1 3 ..ie2 li:lbd3+ 14 ..ixd3 li:l xd3+ 1 5 'it>e2 li:lf4+ 1 6 'it>fl ll::l xg2 1 7 'it>xg2 t!t'h 3+ 1 8 'it>g l 't!rxf3 illustrates White's difficulties. 13 1!fhS 14 ..ie2 ..ig4 I S ..ig3

63

.

Demonstration game 2 ( I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:le4) 4 t!t'd3?! ltJcS s W"g3 Protects the pawn on e5 and i mpedes the development of the bishop o n f8 as the pawn on g7 hangs. S li:le6 6 lLl f3 ltJc6 7 e3 (7H)

Apart from the text White has

64

Fajarowicz 4 ..d3/d4/d5

two other possibilities: a) 7 lLlc3 lLlb4 and because of the threat 8 . . . lLlc2+ White loses the right to castle and his king remains in the cent re, which can hardly be good. b ) 7 a3 prevents the sortie 7 . . . lLl b4 but does nothing for development. 7 . . . d6 (here, and in similar positions, accepting the pawn is fatal) 8 ed? ..ixd6 9 't!lg4 (even worse is 9 'irh3 lLled4 1 0 'ifh4 lLlc2+; now 9 . . 1Lled4 is met by 1 0 't!le4+) 9 . . . 0-0 10 'tfe4 (what else against 1 0 . . . lLled4) 1 0 . . . lile8 I I 't!lc2 lLled4 1 2 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 3 'ird 1 ..if5 and Black wins. So White may n ot play 8 ed but after 8 lLlc3 de 9 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 I 0 11t'xe5 ..id6 he is again hunted. d6 7 8 ..ie2 de 9 lLlxeS?! Please don't forget that the task of a demonstration game is to answer the constant question " What happens if . . . " in most practical cases. Naturally White must not take the pawn on e5 but then Black stands better without material disadvantage. lLlb4! 9 ..id6! 10 lLla3 Threatening 1 1 . . . f6. Therefore: .ixeS f4 11 lLld3+ 12 fe ..xd3 13 .ixd3 o-o 14 'tlt'fl .

ltlcS I S -.e2 16 1fxd3 1 6 b4? •c3+ etc. 1Llxd3+ 16 1 7 'ite2 lLlxeS h3 18 Or Black continues actively with . . . .ig4+. 18 .trs 19 lld1 lilad8 lilxd8 20 lilxd8 b3 21 ..ie4 22 g3 ..if3+ lild 1 23 'itfl Prevents 24 .ib2 because of . . . lild2+ . 24 1Llc2 24 lLlb5 also doesn't help: 24 . . . .i.h5 (threatening . . . lLld3+) 25 g4 .i.g6 26 'ite2 lilh I 27 lLlxc7 lLld3 winning a piece. 24 .i.e4 2S lLle1 25 lLld4? lLld3+ and .. . lilxc I . Now White hopes t o free himself with 26 'ite2. 2S .id3! (79) 79 w

0-1

Fajarowicz 4 1rd3/d4/d5 White is in zugzwang. His rook cannot move, nor his bishop ( 26 .ib2 still fails to . . . lld2+ ). His k n ight also has no moves : 26 lt:lf3 llfl + and . . . lt:lxf3 ; 26 lt:lg2 llfl mate. Black can sadistically make tem po moves with his king u ntil White runs out of pawn moves .

65

7 . . . g5 8 h3 .ig7 9 e3 d6 and Black regains the pawn with active play. b) 6 'i!Vd5 d6 7 .ig5 'i!Vd 7 8 ed .ixd6 9 lt:lc3 lilb4 10 'i!Vd2 'i!Ve6 ( t hreaten­ ing . . . lt:lbd 3+ to be followed by . . . lt:l xf2+ ) I I e3 't!fgo (8 1). 81 w

Summary After 4 'ti'd3 Black wins a tempo (4 . . . lt:lc5 ) and assumes the initi­ ative. After 5 't!rg3 Black secures the point g7 by 5 . . . lt:le6 and then advances in the centre ( . . . d6). B 4 1td4 It is clear that the white queen must soon move again as . . . lt:lc6 is in the air. But first the knight m ust move and again c5 is right. lt:lc5 4 lt:lc6 (80) 5 lt:lf3 80 w

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

Black has a clear advan tage. 1 2 . . . lt:lc2+ i s th reatened and i f 1 2 llc l lt:lbd3+ etc. All other queen moves either lose time (6 'i!Vd l ), obst ruct his own pieces (6 't!rd2), or expose the queen to further attack ( 6 't!t'g4 d6; 6 'tlrh4 .i.e?; 6 't!t'f4 lile6). Thus 4 "t!rd4 is u nsatisfactory. c

4

'i!VdS (82)

66 ·Fajarowicz 4 'f/ld3/d4/d5 4 .tb4 +! Others that have occurred in practice: a) 4 lt:lc5? (bad here ! ) 5 lt:lf3 lL!c6 6 .ig5 .ie7 7 't!fxc5 ! .ixg5 8 lt:lc3 b6 9 Wd5 .ib7 1 0 e6! (double attack on the bishop on g5) 10 . . . f6 1 1 lt:lxg5 fg 1 2 Wxd7+ 't!fxd7 1 3 ed+ 'i!txd7 1 4 0-0-0+ and White won, Olsen-Martinsen, corres 1945. An important hint: after 4 't!fd3 and 4 t!t'd4, 4 . . . lt:lc5 is the best move. After 4 Wd5, on the other hand, it is wrong! There are only a few variations where you can go seriously astray - it's in your own interest to make t he effort to remember them! b) 4 f5 5 ef lt:lxf6 6 't!t'e5+? .ie7 7 .ig5 lt:lc6 !l 't!t'e3 0-0 9 lt:lc3'! lt:lg4 1 0 .ixe7 lt:lxe7 1 1 't!tg3 lL!xf2 0- 1 , Camara-Flores, Sao Paolo 1 937. Camara didn't have his best day. After 4 . . . f5 theoreticians regard 5 lt:ld2 c6 6 't!td3 d5 7 ed 't!t'a5 8 a3 .ixd6 as equal. After 4 ... .ib4+ White now has: CI 5 .id2 C2 5 lt:ld2 ...

...

CI 5 6 7 8 9 After 9

.id2 lt:lxd2 lt:lgf3 0-0-0 llxd2 't!txd2 or 9

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

equalises comfortably with 9 . . . lt:lxe5. The column game is Blumich­ Fajarowicz, match 1 930. Black could now have had a good game with 9 . . . lt:lb4 winning the pawn on a2 or, after 10 't!Va5 b6 I I ti'a4 lt:lc6, with good play against the pawn on e5; the white queen stands a little offside. C2 5 lt:ld2 lt:lc5 6 a3 Or 6 lt:lgf3 0-0 7 g3 b6! and if 8 't!Vxa8 then 8 . . . .ib7 9 't!t'xa7 lt:lc6 winning the q ueen . .ixd2+ 6 b6!! (83) 7 .ixd2 83 w

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

Fajarowicz 4 'f/d3/d4/d5 played. In t he diagram Black threatens a k n ight fork with 8 . . . i.b7 9 \!rd4 lDb3. i.b 7 8 't!rf3 0-0 9 \!rg3 10 i.h6 Or I 0 llJf3 llJe4 1 1 \!rf4 lDxd2 1 2 \!rxd2 llJc6 1 3 e3 lie8 1 4 \!rc3 \!re7 followed by 1 5 . . . llJxe5 and Black stands well (the bishop on b7 is more active t han its opposite num­ ber). llJe6 10 lDc6 II llJf3 1 2 i.d2 After 1 2 e3 f6 the bishop on h6 gets into difficulties ( . . . h8). llJcd4 12 1 3 llJ xd4 lDxd4

67

1 4 \!rd3 l.Uc6 15 i.c3 \!re7 Black stands well. He regains the pawn with . . . lD xe5 and has well-placed pieces (bishop on b7, k n ight on e5). The attempt to maintain the extra pawn by 16 f4 or 16 \!rd5 looks very risky, as Black then plays 1 6 . . . I!ad8 and follows with ... d6 gaining a strong initia tive. Summary Excursions of the white q ueen along the d-file bring nothing for White. On d3 it is molested by . . . llJc5, o n d4 by . . . lDc6. d 5 i s also no place for t he lady, for the black bishop soon appears on b7 with an un mistak eable invitation to move.

Fajarowicz 4 'ir'c2

7

2 3 4

d4 c4 de Wc2 (84)

ltJf6 eS ltJe4

A 4

dS (85)

85

84 B

I n Chapter 6 we saw various queen moves on the d-file. Black was able to attack the exposed queen with one of his knights and thus gai n a lead in development and the bette r game. 4 'tlrc2 also attacks the ' Fajarowicz knight' but this t i me from a safer distance. I t is 4 Wc2 that gives Black the most problems to solve . The material is divided up as follows: A 4 dS 5 various 8 4 . dS 5 ed i.fS 6 not ltJc3 C 4 . . dS 5 ed .US 6 ltJc3 D 4 ..ib4+ ...

..

.

...

s ltJf3? This tame move was played in Game 23. The correct 5 ed will be examined in the next sections. Other possibilities are: a) S e3?! ltJc6 6 ltJf3 ..if5 7 'tlrd I de 8 'tlrxd8+ lilxd8 9 ..ixc4 ..ib4+ 1 0 'it>e2 lt:la5 with advantage to Black in Rubinstein-Beeker, Vienna 1932 ( I I .id37 lilxd3 1 2 'it>xd3 ltJxf2+ etc; I I ..ib3 ltJ xb3 1 2 ab ltJcS followed by . . . .id3+; I I ..ib5+ c6 1 2 .ta4 ltJc5 followed by . . . ..id3+). b) S cd 't!rxd5 6 ltJd2 i.b4 7 ltJgf3 ltJc6 8 a3 ..ixd2+ 9 ..ixd2 (9 ltJ xd2? .if5) 9 . . . ltJxd2 10 1hd2 1hd2+ I I lt:lxd2 (or I I 'it>xd2 .ig4 followed

Fajarowicz 4 1fcl by . . . 0-0-0 and . . . lihe8) 1 1 . . . lt:lxe5 with equality. Black's best set-up is . . . ..te6, . 0-0-0 and . . . lihe8. .

69

H6 w

.

G ame 23 Mititelu-Seineanu Romania 1 955 (J d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:le4 4 't!tc2 d5) s lt:lf3? . ..trs As we will see in B, the bishop o n f5 and the queen on c 2 are natural enemies. On account of the threat . . . lt:lg3 the stronger one m ust move away. 6 't!ta4+ lt:lc6 7 ..te3 The natural 7 e3 leads to a very good game for Black after 7 . . . lt:lc5 8 \ltd I (else t h e white queen is lost: M 'irb5?? a6; 8 't!ta3'!! lt:ld3+ ! ) 8 . . . lt:lb4 9 lt:la3 c6! followed b y 1 0 . . 't!ta5 and/or . . . lt:lbd3. Therefore White decides to control the square c5, but also without any luck . 7 ..tb4+ 8 lt:lbd2 d4! 9 ..tf4 Naturally 9 lt:lxd4 fails to 9 . . . ..txd2+. 9 g5 10 a3 If 10 ..tg3 g4 and one of the k n ights is lost. 10 lt:lc5! 11 't!tdl gf 12 ab lt:lxb4 1 3 licl d3 ! (86) .

White's position is a picture of misery . Unfortunately the rest of this game is not extan t . It is on ly k nown that Black won. White will lose at least the exchange with a miserable position . Summary The sortie . . . ..tf5 which t hreatens the whi te queen or creates dis­ covered threats must be taken seriously. White has no time for slack moves. The knight on e4 must be deprived of protection. B 5

ed

..trs rs 7)

The games in the following

70

Fajarowicz 4 1Wc2

three sections illustrate the com­ monly played moves. 6 ltJc3! is in C. B 1 6 de? B2 6 1!t'a4+? B3 6 1!rb3? B1 6

de? Game 24 Rossner-Kipke Berlin 1933

( I d4 ltJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ltJe4 4 tfc2 d5 5 ed .i.f5) 6 ck? White's overlarge appetite will not do him any good. 1txc7 6 ltJc6 7 trb3 0-0-0 8 ltJ f3 liJcS e3 9 White is already lost. If 10 1!rc3 there follo ws 1 0 . . . ltJb4 I I ltJa3 ltJe4 1 2 't!lb3 t!t'a5 1 3 �e2 ( 1 3 .i.d2 ltJ xd 2 14 ltJxd2 ltJc2+) 13 . . . ltJc5 1 4 tfc3 .i.d3+ with deadly dis­ coveries. So he ma kes a last try: 10 1!t'a3!? (88)

Normally 1!t'a3 would be bad on account of the standard combin­ ation ... ltJd3+ and . . . .i.xa3. Here, by way of exception, this com bin­ ation is inadequate: 10 . . . liJd3+ I I .i.xd 3 .i.xa3 1 2 .i.xf5+ lttb8 1 3 ltJxa3 and White would have 'half the board' for the queen. H o wever, Black can realise his advantage i n a different way. ltJb4! 10 Now naturally I I t!t'xb4'n liJd3+ 1 2 .i.xd3 .txb4+ would be com­ pletely hopeless. I I ltJd4 l hd4 and 1 2 ... ltJc2+ is also won for Black . 1 1 t!t'xa7 ltJc2+ 0-1 There could follow 1 2 ltte 2 .i.d3+ 1 3 lttd l ( 1 3 �d2 lbe4+) 1 3 . . . ltJ x a I etc. A nother horrible example on the same theme: Game 25 Krastev-Donev Bulgaria / 954 ( 1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ltJe4 4 1!t'c2 d5 5 ed .i.f5) 6 1!t'xc7 de? 7 1!t'a4+ ltJc6 8 ltJf3 0-0-0 Again threatening . . . lbc5 and . . . ltJb4. White now wants to pro­ tect b4 . . . 9 .td2 t!t'b6 . . . but comes up against two nasty threats: . . . 11fxb2 winning a rook

Fajarowicz 4 Wc2 and . . . 't!rxf2+. He chose: 1!hf1+ 10 't!rb3 ..tb4 11 �1 1 2 �c1 Or 1 2 .!t:lc3 ..t xc3 1 3 be ll xd2+! 14 .!i:l xd2 lld8 etc. .!i:lxd2 12 llxd2! 1 3 .!t:lbxd2 't!rel + 1 4 .!t:lxd2 ..txd2 mate 1 5 1!t'd1 A rare and pretty mate. Summary 6 de? in creases Black's al ready dangerous initiative. Furthermore, it opens the d-file, but only for t he entry of the black roo k ! So: hands off the pawn on c7! B2 6

1!t'a4+

Game 26 H .Steiner-Fajarowicz Wiesbaden 1 928 ( I d4 .!t:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de .!t:le4 4 't!rc2 d5 5 ed ..tf5) 6 1!t'a4+ ( 89) H 'J B

7I

White's queen voluntarily leaves the line of fire of the bishop on f5. 6 .!i:lc6 7 .!i:lf3 7 de leads to positions si milar to those in games 2 and 3. 7 ..txd6 8 a3 Directed against . . . .!t:lc5 followed by . . . .!t:lb4 threatening c2. 8 't!rf6 9 g3 White does not want to weaken the square d3 (for which, as we have just seen, t he black knight sometimes aims) and prepares to build a safe haven for his king (g3, i.g2, 0-0). However, he does not manage to castle. 9 0-0-0 1 0 .!t:lbd2 If immediately 10 ..tg2, then 1 0 . . .!t:lc5 I I 't!rd I ..txg3. Therefore White doses the d-file. 10 .!i:lcS I I 't!rd I llhe8 1 2 ..tg2 ..td3! 13 e3 ..teS 14 .!t:lxeS It is easy to say t h a t W h i t e should have done something else, but what? 14 .!t:lxeS IS f4 i.xc4! (90) As far as t h e opening is �:on­ cernc d , the world premiere of t h e .

Fajarowi�:z Gambit h a s completely

succeeded. Black has a w i n n ing

72

Fajarowicz: 4 'tiel 26 27 28 29

90 w

posit ion. 1 6 fe?? is out of the question because of 16 . . . ll:ld3+ and 1 7 . . �f2 mate and after 1 6 �fl �ed3+ 1 7 .i.xd3 ll:l xd3+ 1 8 �e2 or 1 8 �fl White loses his queen to 1 8 . . . ll:l xb2+. And so, 0- 1 '! Not at all ! 1 6 �f2 Here Black could have driven home t he coffin nail immediately: 16 . . . ll:led3+ 1 7 �g l (or 1 7 �0 't!tc6+ 1 8 e4 ll xe4 etc) 1 7 ... lhe3 1 8 ll:l f3 lle l + ! ( 1 9 ll:lxe l 1td4+ and mates; 19 't!he I ll:lxe I etc). .te6? 16 ll:lb3 h3! 17 ll:lx a l 1 8 �gl 19 fe �xeS .i.dS 20 �f3 .i.c6 e4 21 ll:lc2 22 �h2 23 'ftxf7 lU8?! Simpler was 23 ... lbe3 followed by 24 . . . ll:lxg2 or, if 24 .tO, 24 . . . lhd 2 ! 2 5 .i x d 2 ttxb2 etc. ll:ld4 24 'i!Vb3 l:tf2 25 �c3

llel lldfl 'tlf6 �· :an ll xfl+ ll:lxn (91)

.

-

Black is still winning, for example after 29 . . . .ixe4 ! , but now, un­ believably, he played: 29 �xn +?? D id Fajarowicz see some sort of mating net? Unfortunately we can no longer ask him. 30 .i.xn J::t x n+ 3 1 �g2 1 -0? Black was probably completely unnerved by his blunder for he could still fight on with 3 1 . . . ll:le2 32 tte3 J::t x c I 33 'tlxe2 b5! (with the idea ... J::t c 4, followed by . . . �b7) and W hite i s still far from winning. The curious end to this game does not alter the fact that the vari­ ation in this section is advantageous for Black. The white queen finds no peace on a4 as it is chased by . . . li:lc5. The same applies t o the next game, where she moves to b3.

Fajarowicz 4 'iic2 83 6

1!t'b3 Game 27 Gilfer-Richter Munich OJ 1 936

( I d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLle4 4 1!t'c2 d5 5 cd �f5) 6 'i!t'b3 �xd6 7 lLld2 7 'ti'xb7? 0-0 8 'ti'xa 8?? ends in disaster: 8 . . . i.b4+ 9 �d2 �xd2+ 10 �d l lLlxf2 mate. 0-0 7 8 1!t'xb7? Relatively better was 8 lLlgf3 though Black still has a very active game after 8 . . . lLlc5 9 irc3 lLlc6 1 0 a3 a 5 I I e3 lieS 1 2 i.e2 i.e7! followed by . . . i.f6 or 9 tt'd I lbc6 10 a3 a5 I I e3 lt:ld3 + . Now, how­ ever, White's ship goes under very quickly. 8 i.cS! 9 e3 Forced. The k night on e4 is naturally taboo: 9 lt:l xe4 i.xe4 1 0 'ti'xe4?? i.b4+ and mates. 9 irxa 8 i.xf2+ I 0 �d I i.e3 I I lbgf3 lt:lf2+ 1 2 �e I i.e4 results in a very original trapping of the queen. 9 ire7! (92) Eying the point e3, e.g. a ) 10 irxa8 lt:lxd2 ( threatening . . . i.e4) I I f3 irxe3+ etc. b) 10 lt:lgO lt:lxf2! I I �xf2 irxe 3+ 12 �g3 i.d6+ 13 �h4 irh6 mate. Therefore the contorted text

73

move - the point e3 m u s t be protected. White's position is still beyond salvation. He defin itely overstepped the mark with 7 'ti'x b7. The rest is easily compre­ hensible .

I 0 lt:ldf3 �b4+ II i.d2 lt:lxd 2 1 2 lt:lxd2 �e4 1 3 'ti'bS l:ld8 1 4 0-0-0 1!t'd6 I S lt:lgO i.xf3 1 6 gf i. xd2+ 1 7 �bl lt:lc6 18 cS 1!t'g6+ 19 e4 l:lab8 20 1!t'c4 't!tf6 2 1 b3 lt:laS 0-1 . I f 2 2 1!t'c2 1!t'xf3 2 3 l:lg I lt:lxb3 etc. Summary I f t he white queen moves fro m c2, it goes out of the frying pan into the fire. The " Fajarowicz k night" o n e4 finds a fine square o n c5 with gain of tempo. Is the source of the t rouble to be found i n 4 1!t'c2? As we will see in C, this is not the case. Only the moves 6 trb3 and ira4 are bad . White has a m uch stronger con­ tinuation at his sixth move.

74

Fajarowicz 4 1i'c2

c

4 5 6

ed lt:Jc3! (93)

d5 .if5

In this way the strength of the k night discovery is considerably reduced. With lt:Jc3 White once again covers t he square e4 so that moves of the black k n ight can be answered by e4. The following illustrative game acquaints us with t he refinements of this variation. G ame 28 Kottnauer-M artin CzechoJ/ovakia v. France 1 946 ( I d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:Je4 4 1i'c2 d5 5 ed .if5) lt:Jxd6 6 lt:Jc3! Black has no other moves: a) 6 lt:Jg3 7 11ra4+ .i.d7 8 de 'ihc7 9 lt:Jb5! . b) 6 lt:Jxl1? 7 'tlfxf5 lt:Jxh l H .ig5 c) 6 lt:Jxc3 7 11rxf5 ltJa4 8 1lrb5+ 1i'd7 9 1Wxb7 with a winning position for White i n all cases. ...

...

...

7 c4! lLlxc4 (94) Black has scarcely any choice: 7 . . . 1We7 8 i.d3 lt:Jc6 9 lt:lge2 i.g6 (9 . . . lt:Jb4?'! 1 0 't!¥a4+) 1 0 . lt:Jd5 with a clear advantage to White.

Before we look at the actual course of the ga me, we must with­ out fail become familiar with the important alternative 8 lt:Jxe4. I n this variation Black must play for a long time with a piece less. Admit tedly, he has a powerful initiative for it. In short, it is playing with fire - for both players. However, players of the Fajarowicz Gambit may not avoid risks. Acceptance of the piece sacrifice 8 i.b4+ 9 'it>e2 (9 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 10 1i'xd2 i.xe4 I I 'ifxd8+ 'it>xd8 1 2 0-0-0+ 'it>c8 with equality) 9 lt:Jc6 1 0 .ie3 1i'e7 II f3 0-0-0 (95) - is, according to analysis by I M Nikola Minev in ECO, better for Black. U p to n ow nobody has shown the desire to doubt this opinion and play the position with the white pieces, so we must forgo -

...

...

Fajarowicz 4 Wc2 practical examples.

Some possibilities: a) 12 a3 lld2+ 1 3 .ixd2 liJd4+ 14 lttf2 liJxc2 1 5 .ixb4 liJxb4 16 ab 1!rxb4 is good for Black as Wh ite's ki ngside is still undeveloped . b) 1 2 liJd6+ llxd6 1 3 1!rxf5+ lle6! 14 'it>f2 g6 1 5 1!rh3 ( 1 5 1!rd3 llxe3 followed by ... .ic5) 15 ... f5 1 6 .if4 ll e I wins ( 1 7 llxe I 1!rxe I mate; 1 7 .ic l l hfl + ! 1 8 'it>xfl'!? 1!re l mate). c) 12 'it>fl ll he 8 and now: c l ) 13 liJd6+ ll xd6 14 1!rxf5+ 'it>b!l 1 5 1!rf4 ( 1 5 .if4 't!f"e l + ! ! 1 6 llxe l .ixe l mate) 1 5 . . . l:U6 1 6 1!rg5 h6 a nd wins as c3 can no longer be defended. c2) 13 .id3 .ig6 (t hreatening . . . f5 ) 1 4 g4 ( White can hardly be enthu­ siastic about 14 a3 f5 1 5 ab liJxb4 16 1!t'a4 liJxd3+ 17 'it>fl fe 18 't!rxa 7 el) 1 4 . . . liJe5 1 5 lld I 1!t'h4+ 1 6 'it>g2 liJ xg4 1 7 fg 1hg4+ I g 'it'll, ( I ll liJg3 lihe3) I ll . . . i.xe4 1 9 .ixe4 1!t'xd I with advantage t o Blac k .

75

/\ n ex ha ustive a na l ysis i s not feasible for the number of possible variations is very great . Black's conduct of the attack is associated in many cases with . . . lie!!, . . . .ig6 and . . . f5. Experience shows that in a practical game the attacker has bet ter chances than the defender. For one thing the art of defence is significantly more difficult to learn than that of attack, for another mistakes a re much more likely to be commi tted by the defender; hc must pay heed to a whole host of threats while the attacker (after ma king his select ion from the pos­ sible variations) can co ncentrate on only one continuation . Also such factors as use of energy, use of time and nervousness come into play and in all cases the defender is at a disadvantage. This explains the large number of attacking victorics which proved to be not completely correct in analysis, but which succeeded at the board. In short, given a ration of courage and good tactical abality , the vari­ ation given above offers Black good practical prospects - a verdict with which ECO agrees. After this long diversion we return to our illustrative ga me (sec diagram 94 ), in which Kottnaucr chose a continuation which was significantly more unpleasant for

76

Fajarowicz 4 'tic2

Black: 8 9 10

.id3! .ixf5 ll:if3 (96)

ll:ixf2 ll:ixh1

\IIi 8

This position is of decisive i m­ portance for the fate of the variation 4 'tic2 d5. Before we devote our­ selves to its analysis, we will look at the course of our illustrative game: i.c5? 10 'tlt'e7 11 ll:ie4 f6 1 2 i.g5 1 2 . . . .ib4+ 1 3 c;&e2 f6 1 4 i.e3 wins - Reu ben Fine. 13 0-0-0 An ingen ious piece sacrifice that Black can hardly accept: 1 3 . . . fg 1 4 ll:ixc5 1!t'xc5 1 5 11re4+ 'tlt'e7 1 6 'tixb7 0-0 1 7 11rxa8 ll:if2 1 8 'tlt'd5+ c;&h8 19 lie I with great advantage to White. ll:ia6 13 14 1ld7 (97) The board is in flames! White is temporarily the exchange and a pawn down and his bishop on g5 is

hanging, but his entire army is ideally placed for attack. Moreover, the k nigh t on h I is trapped. In the game Black sacrifices his queen. The alternative is 1 4 . . . 'tlt'f8 1 5 11re2! i.e7 1 6 ll:ie5 ! ! and now: a) 1 6 ... fg 1 7 1!t'h5+ g6 18 i. xg6+ hg 1 9 1Wxg6+ 11rt7 20 'tht7 mate. b) 16 ... g6 1 7 ll:i xf6+ i.xf6 1 8 ll:ixg6+ etc. c) 16 ... fe 1 7 li xe7+ 'tixe7 1 8 i.xe7 c;&xe7 1 9 We i ! 1lhf8 20 i.h3 and 21 9xh l . Thus 1 4 . . . trf8 would also not save Black. The rest is understand­ able without much comment. 'tltxd7 14 15 .txd7+ c;&xd7 ll:i xc5 16 ll:ixc5+ 1 7 'tltf5+ ll:ie6 liae8 1 8 ll:id4 c;&c8 19 1lrd5+ 20 ll:ixe6 fg 21 ll:ic5 lie1 + After 2 1 . . . lih f8 Black gets mated: 22 11rxb7+ c;&d8 23 1td 5+ c;&e7 (23 . . . c;&c8 24 'tlt'a8 mate) 24

Fajaro wicz 4 11rc2 11re6+ �d8 25 1lrd7 mate. � he8 2 2 �d2 23 1fxb7+ �d8 24 Wb8+ �e7 1 -0 25 11rxe8+ If 25 . . . �xe8 26 �xe I followed by �fl -g l xh l etc. An impressive victory by White! Nevertheless, we don't want to forget that Black blundered on his l Oth move, so we return to the critical position . . . ( I d4 tLld6 2 c4 e5 3 de tLle4 4 'i!fc2 d5 5 ed .if5 6 tLlc3 tLl xc6 7 e4 tLlxe4 8 .id3 tLlxf2 9 .i x f5 tLlxh I ) 1 0 tLlf3 . . . and confirm that 1 0 . . . .id6? I I tLle4 .ixh2 ( with the idea 1 2 tLlxh2 'irh4+) 1 2 .ig5 ! gives White the advantage. We make some deliberations however: If White wants to castle he must play .td2 and 0-0-0. Then the knight on h i can escape via f2. Naturally White can play .te3 and �e2 followed by �xh I . I n this case the knight o n h I is not saved, but at what price; the wh ite king will hardly find peace in the middle of the board. Black will the refore q uickly put his heavy pieces on the e-file. Wh ite has two minor pieces (after he has won the knight on h I ); B lack has a rook and a pawn. Accordingly Black must try to

77

take cent ral outposts from the enemy pieces, to which purpose he places his el' t ra pawns (see later JO. . . g6, f j . . . . c6, j!.. . . f5 ). The black rooks m ust occupy the two open central files. So we construct a demonstration game, not forgetting that the course of this game is in no way forced. but is only meant to illustrate ideas and plans. Demonstration Game 3 ( I d4 liJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de tLle4 4 'i!t'c2 d5 5 cd i:. f5 6 tLlc3 tLlxd6 7 e4 tLlxe4 8 .id3 lt:Jxf2 9 .ixf5 Coxh I 1 0 �f3 g6) Black begins the plan of reducing outposts in the centre. I I .ie4 (98) I I .ig5? .ie7 1 2 .ixe7 't!txc7+ 1 3 .ic4 f5 wins ; I I 1Wc4+? .ie7 1 2 .ih3 0-0 and 1 3 . . . lle8; I I i:.dJ li:\c6 1 2 a3 'i!fe7+ 1 3 'i!fe 2 0-0-0 1 4 't!rxe7 .ixe7 1 5 �e2 �he!! with an attack.

II

c6

78

Fajarowicz 4 1!t'c2

The important square d5 is made u navailable to t he white pieces. 12 .ie3 Again 1 2 .ig5 .ie7 1 3 .ixe7 'ffx e7 plays i nto Black's hands; he will bring his heavy pieces to the e-file. 12 fS 13 .id3 1!t'e7 14 'ffe2 14 �d2 ll'la6 followed by . . . ��0 with an attack on the d-file. 14 ll'la6 IS 0-0-0 0-0-0 16 l:lxhl 16 .ixa7? .ih6+ 17 �b l ._xe2 1 8 ll'lxe2 c5! 19 .ib6 ll'lfl! and wins. 16 lt:lb4 17 .ibl .ig7 18 .tgS (99) 1 8 a3 .ixc3 1 9 be l0a6 with the threats 20 . . . f4 and 20 . . . Wxa 3+; if 18 ._f2 ll'ld3+ 19 .ixd3 l:lxd3 with the attack; or 18 l:i:e l l:lhe8 and Black has splendid development.

18

._xe2

19 ll'lxe2 l:i:de8 20 lt:led4 cS l:le2 21 ll'lbS 22 .id2 22 li:lc3? .ixc3 23 be ll'lxa2+. lld8 22 23 l0xa7+ 23 l0c3 ll xg2; or 23 g3 llfl. 23 �b8 l hg2 24 ll'lbS 25 .tf4+ �a8 26 .tes Nothing good comes from 26 li:lc7+ �a7 27 li:lb5+. 26 .ixeS 27 ll'lxeS l:i:dd2 28 a3 (100/ Or 28 h4 l:i: xb2 29 h5 li:l xa2+ 30 .txa2 l:i: xa2 3 1 �b l l:i:gb2+ 32 �c l l:i:h2!.

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

ll'l xc6 ll'lc3 h4 ll'ld l a4 .tc2

ll'lc6 be l hb2 l:l b3 hS ll b4 li xc4

Fajarowicz 4 We2 35 ll:)e3 36 ll:)xc2 37 Jilel 37 ll:)e3?? lla l + ; 37 37 38 lile6 39 lhc6 40 ll:)e3 40 llxc5 h3 4 1 lic3 lilg I+ etc. 40 41 ll:)xg4 42 lixg6 43 lih6 44 ot>d2 0-1

Jilgxc2+ lixa4 li g l lig4 ! . lixh4 lig4 h4

h3! fg h2 g3 g2

This pretty demonstration game should not disguise the fact that there are problems to be solved in the variation with 6 ll:)c3 . On the other hand Black has many active counterchances in the plan with • . .

101 w

h2 42 Jilh3

Summary

lo

79

a6·

Only tournament practice can give a definitive answer with regard to the playability of this variation. A player who is familiar with the particularities of this variation ca n, however, happily employ it in his games. D �b4+ ( 101) 4 The four previous sections have shown the many attacking possi­ bilities in the variation 4 1Wc2 d5.

Those who find the resulting sacri­ ficial dance too hot can put their trust i n an idea of the master Hermann Steiner. After the bishop check 5 �d2 is obviously harmless: 5 . . . ll:)xd2 6 ll:)xd 2 et:lc6 7 et:Jf3 (7 f4? here and in similar positions is not good: 7 . . . d6 ll cd irxd6 9 e 3 0-0 1 0 ll:)f3 lle8 I I '.t>f2 �c5 1 2 lie l 1Wxf41 etc or K et:lf3 de followed by 9 . . . 1We7) 7 . . . 1We7 and Black rega ins his pawn (8 1We4 d6! ) and has the bet ter ga me on account of his bishop pai r. We th erefore consider: Dl 5 lbd2 02 5 lbc3! Dl 5 lbd2 d5 White has three plausible move� : a) 6 cd transposes to A of Chapter 7. We saw there that the situation i� sati�fact ory for B l ack . b) 6 e3 - sec game 29. c) 6 ed - see ga mes 30-32.

80

Fajarowicz 4 Wc2 G ame 29 Timet-Meyer Zagreb 1 953

( I d4 lt:lf6 i.b4+) 5 6 7 8 9

2 c4 e5 3 de lt:le4 4 1ic2 lt:ld2 e3 i.d3 g3 lt:lgf3

d5 .tr5 tig5! lt:ld7 1rg4 (102)

18

'i!lg1 1rg4+ •!z- •/z From the diagram Black could play better and obtain a clear advantage. 9 tih5! 10 0-0 .txd2 1 1 lt:lxd2 ll::! x e5

/02 B

With the threat . . . 't!t'xf3 ! . This threat would be better executed by 9 . . . 't!t'h5 - see analysis at the end of t he game. i.xd2 10 0-0 lt:lxd2 11 lt:lxd2 1 2 i.xf5 Here the black queen is attacked which it would not be after 9 . . . .., 5 . lt:lf3+ 12 't!t'h 5 1 3 'i!lh1 'i!lxd7 1 4 i.xd7+ lt:lh4+ 1 5 'i!lg2 \ig4+ gh 16 1rf3 + 1 7 'i!lh1

There is now the deadl y threat of 13 ... 1rh3 and 1 4 ... lt:lf3+ or 14 . . . lt:lg4. 1 3 lt:l xe4 fails to 1 3 . . . lt:lf3 + followed b y 1 4 . . . .t h 3 + and 1 5 . . . .txfl and a fter 1 3 h 4 0-0-0 Black threatens 14 . . . ll xd2! followed by . . . lt:lf3+ and . . . 't!rg4 with a ma ting attack . 1 3 't!ra4+ c6 only removes the queen from the kingside . 13 f4 ef 14 e4 i.h3 t5 liln o-o-o 16 lt:lfl lt:ld3 and Black wins. 1 7 lild2?? 't!rc5+; 1 7 i.e3 lt:l xf2 with a decisive rna-

Fajarowicz 4 '@c2 terial advantage. The passive 6 e3 brought White no luck. In the following illustrative games several players tried 6 cd. 6 ed i. fS ( /04)

81

C h a n ces a rc l e v e l . T h e game

could con tinue I I g f lLlxc4 1 2 llc l lLldo 13 f6 ( 1 3 1i xc7 llJC6 1 4 i.g2 '.!/dX i� gooJ for 8 b c k ) 13 . . . c6 1 4 fg Il.gK I � d li , d 7 l t. li ic 2 0-0-0 17 � h J li xg 7 I K tL:lgJ and the result i s st i l l o pe n . I n t h e fo l l o w i n g ga mes w e w i l l sec t h a t W h i t e d o c s b e t t e r to p l a y t h e a bo v e t h eo ret ica l vana t i n n

divergences h a v e

not proved

a�

good:

G ame 30 Antainen-� iem inen Finnish Currt'.\ Ch 1 9 73

d4 ttl ft. 2 c4 e5 3 de lLl c4 4 'iWc 2 i.b4+ 5 lLld2 d 5 )

(I

This is the start ing position of tht: following three in tert:sting, if not mistake-free, games. The theo retical cont inuation runs: 7 a3 i.xd2+ 8 i.xd2 1!fxd6 Black has abundan t compen­ sat ion for the sacrificed pawn, e.g. 9 't!kc l (avoiding the discovery lLlg3) 9 lLlc6 1 0 e 3 (after I 0 i. f4 't!ke7 I I e3 0-0-0 1 2 lLlf3 lLla5 threat­ l!Jb3 Black sta nds clearly ening better) 10 0-0-0 I I i.e2 g5 with a very active game. To be consi­ dered is: 9 g4!? With the idea 9 i,g6 1 0 i.g2 ! lLlg3 I I 't!ka4+ etc. 9 't!kxd2+ 9 0 0 . l!Jxd2? 10 •xf5 followed by 't!ke4+. 0 0 0

6 7

8 9 10

II 12 13

ed de 1!fa4+ lLlf3 a3 i.xd2 lLlxd2 �xd2

.IdS 'iWxc7 �c6 0-0-0 ..txdH lLlxd2 llxd2! 'tireS! (105)

0 0 0

o o •

000

000

10

•xd2

lLlxd2

This position had occurred in M i.iss-Reinhardt, corres 1 935. After

82

Fajarowicz 4 1Wc2

14 >!;>e 1 �xb2 1 5 lld I i.c2 Black won without trou ble. Also aftc:r 1 4 -;!¥b5 lld8+ 1 5 'it>e l li:ld4! fol lowed by 1 6 . . . li:lc2 ( mate) or I § ..t>� I �14+ 1 7 c3 Wxf2 Black wins in a k w moves. lld8+ 1 4 'i!;'b3 li:la5 IS �c l i.e4 16 't!t'f3 17 'i!Vc3(?) 1 7 �h3+ \t)b8 would have pro­ longed the suffering a little. �d6 17 0-1

Mate by 18 . . . �d l or 1 8 b4 �d I + 1 9 'xb2 h5 ll:lg3 b4 ll:lf5 ll:lxf5 �xf5 3 �xd3 �d l h d3 lUd8 llhdl 'it>� 'it>c2 'it>e7 1/z- 1/z This is only a single example as illustration; i n a practical game there a re naturally many other possibilities for bot h sides. Summary In t he variation 4 \!t'c2 Black has the choice between the particularly sharp continuation 4 . . d5 and the solid variation 4 . . . �b4+. In all variations Black plays ... d 5 and . . . �f5 - the standard moves o f t his line. For White the set-ups with ed and ll:lc3 are best. With that, general tips are almost exhausted. This variation is a tactical one; k now­ ledge of concrete move orders is necessary. .

8

Fajarowicz 4 ltJf3 and others

ll::l f6 d4 1 e5 c4 2 ll::l e4 3 de I n Chapter 6 we dealt with various q ueen moves on the d-file, in Chapter 7 the important vari­ ation 4 'tlrc2. In th is chapter we examine t he main variation 4 ll::l f3 and two other, rarely played, moves: A 4 ll::l d 2 14 a3 8 4 ll::l f3 ll::lc 6 c 4 ll::l f3 .1b4+ A 1 4 ll::l d 2 ll::l c5 A2 4 a3 AI

.

4 /09 w

After 5 ll::l gf3 ll::l c6 the ga me transposes to B. ECO gives 5 b4 ll::l e6 6 a3 a5 ! 7 b5 d6 1l ed .i.xd6 9 ll::l gf3 0-0 1 0 e3 ll::ld 7 with a good game for Black (the square c5 for the knight on e6, while the other comes to f6 or e5 ). 7 . . . b6!? comes into consideration ( instead of 7 ... d6) with the plausible follow-up 8 ll::l gf3 .i.b7 9 e3 g5!? I 0 .1b2 .i.g7 I I 'tlrc2 (protecting the bishop on b2 in order to be able to capture the d-pawn after an eventual . . . d6) I I . . . g4 1 2 ll::l d4 ll::l c 5! (but not 1 2 ... i.xe5?? 13 ll::l xe6) 1 3 ll::l e2 (the idea is protect the pawn on e5 and prepare ll:Jg3-f5 ) 1 3 . . d6 14 ll::lg 3 ( 1 4 ed ..txb2 15 'tlrxb2?? ll::ld 3+) 14 . . . ..txe5 1 5 ..txe5 de and Black's position is preferable (the plan is . . . 'ttf6, . . . ll::l bd7 . . . 0-�0). ' Certamly not everyt hing has been played out in this variation, but on general strategic grou nds Black must have a good ga me. The extra white pawn is weak and doubled and Black has a permanent st rong point for his knight on c5.

ll::l d 2

ll::l c 5 (109)

86

Fajarowicz 4 �f3 and others

A2

a3 4 This prevents the often unplea­ sant bishop check, but Black has a simple way of equalising. Game 33 O'Kelly-Bisguier San Juan 1 969 ( I d4 �f6 2 c4 e5 3 de �e4) 4 a3 1Vh4 5 g3 On 5 i.e3 Staker gives the following variation: 5 .. . ..tc5 6 ..txc5 �xc5 7 'i!fc2 (7 e3 �c6 8 �f3 'i!fe7 with equal ity; 9 1td5?! b6 followed by . . . ..tb7 and moving the k n ight from c6 is favourable for Black) 7 . . . �c6 8 li:lf3 1th5 9 e3 ltJxe5 I 0 ..te2 d6 I I lLlbd2 ..tg4 with equality. 5 trh5 6 lLld2 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 7 1!fc2 (7 ..tf4 ..tc5! 8 e3 g5) 7 . . . 1!ff5 ! ( threatening . . . ltJxg3). 7 ltJbd 2 leads t o the text. ltJxd2 6 �c6 7 1!fxd2 8 ltjf3 8 f4?! is risky: 8 . . . d6! 9 ed ..txd6 10 e4 i.g4 I I e5 ..tc5 followed by . . . lild8 with a powerful initiative. ltJxe5 8 d6 9 1!fe3 ..te7 1 0 ..tg2 1Wxe5 II li:l xe5 dt: 12 'irxe5 1/z-1/z

Those who fi nd this too 4uiet can try 7 ... 1!fxe5 instead of 7 . . . ltJc6, e.g. 8 ltJf3 1tf6 9 ..tg2 g6 1 0 0-0 ..tg7. H ere too the bala nce is maintained and there are still many pieces o n the board. The game is quite open . B 4

ltjf3

lLlc6 (I 10)

1 /0 w

The two m ost common moves are: 81 5 lLlbd2 82 5 a3! Others: a) 5 ..tf4? ..tc5 6 e3 ..tb4+ 7 lLl bd2 g5 8 ..ig3 h5 9 h 3 ltJxg3 10 fg 1fe7 with advantage to B lack. b) 5 e3 d6 6 ed ..txd6 7 o.'L!bd 2 lLlc5 8 a3 't!Vf6 9 lLlb3 lt.Jxb3 10 \Wxb3 ..tg4!, Strasdas-Richter, Berlin 1 933. After 1 1 ..te2 0-0-0 12 h3 ..th5 followed by . . . lLle5 the situation was unclear but Black is certainly very active. Snatching the pawn with I I 'i!fxb7 does not turn out well : I I . . .

Fajarowicz 4 lLlf3 and others

0-0 1 2 .i.e2 ( 1 2 Wxc6'r! .i.b4+) 1 2 . . . llab8 1 3 Wa6 liJd4 (threatening . . . ..tb4+ winning the queen) and Black stands superbly, e.g. 1 4 't!ra4 lL!xe2 1 5 �xe2 ll xb2+! 1 6 ..txb2 Wxb2+ 1 7 �d3 lld8 1 8 liJd4 .i.c5 threatening both ... ..tf5+ and . . . llxd4+. c) S WdS ..tb4+ 6 ..td2 liJ xd2 7 lL!bxd2 We7 8 0-0-0 ..txd2+ 9 llxd2 and we have transposed into Bli.imich-Fajarowicz, Chapter 6, C 1 . After 9 . . . liJb4 Black has equalised.

87

H l l 6 g3

8 1 2 6 a3 811 d6 6 g3 ..txd6 7 ed 8 ..tgl 0-0 9 0-0 Wf6 1 0 lL!b3 ..te6 I I lt:lxc5 ..txc5 1 2 Wa4 ..tg4 1 3 lL!g5 llae8 14 lL!e4 llxe4 1 5 ..txe4 ..txe2 and Black regains the exchange with a good game, Barcza-H alic, H ungary 1 946. 812

81 s llJbdl Here it should be noticed that this variation can also arise after 4 lt:ld2 lt:lc5 5 llJgf3 . Therefore you should look at this section even if you decide to play the variation 4 . . . ..tb4+ (see C) instead of 4 . . . lL!c6. liJcS (I 1 1) s Ill w

Here, too, the path divides, illustrated by practical examples.

6 a3 We7 and now: a) 7 b4? lL!xe5 8 e3 (8 lL! xe5 Wxe5 with the double threat of . . . liJd3 mate and . .. Wxa I ) 8 . .. liJ cd3+ and Black stands better. b) 7 e3 lL!xe5 8 lL! xe5 'tlfxe5 9 lt:lf3 1ff6 10 .i.e2 ..te7 I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 liJd4 lL!e6 1 3 lL!b5, Rejfir-Richter, Prague 1 93 1 , and now 13 . . . d6 14 .if3 lld8 with equality. The follow­ ing variation, naturally not forced, demonstrates that this position can quickly 'tip over': 1 5 lib I (better is 1 5 lL!c3 im mediately) 1 5 . . . c6 1 6 lL!c3 lL!g5 1 7 ..te2 ..tf5 1 8 .i.d3 liJh3+! 1 9 gh ( 1 9 ct>h l ? .i.xd3 20 Wxd3 lL!xf2+) 19 . . . Wg6+ 20 �h I ..txd3 2 1 llg I ..t xb I 22 llxg6 ..txg6 and Black stands better. B2 S

a3!

88

Fajarowicz 4 �/3 and others 11

Prevents the usual freeing and pinning manoeuvre . . . .i.b4+ and also a later . . . lt:lb4. Black now has

are Black's prospects? Pretty bad. He cannot castle because of .i.g5.

problems.

d6

s

What else? 5 . . . a5 6 b3 d6 7 .i.b2 .i.e7 8 �bd2 �xd2 9 Wxd2 with a healthy extra pawn for White.

6

WdS

The first storm is over and what

So:

11 12

g3

h6 gS

Again castling was not good on account of 13 �h4 Wf6 (or 13 . . .

1fc2 (1 12)

lt:lxg3 1 4 hg 1ff6 1 5 lt:le4) 1 4 Wxh I followed by �d5. Therefore Black prevents �h4.

13 14

.i.g2 hg (1 13)

�xg3

After 6 . . . d5 there follows 7 cd 1fxd5 8 �c3 �xc3 9 -.xc3 .i.g4 10 .i.f4 and Black has scarcely any­ thing for the pawn. With regard to 6 . . . .i.f5 , see the following illustrative game:

Game 34 Reshevsky-Bisguier New York 1954-5 ( I d4 �f6 2 c4 e5 3 de �e4 4 lt:IO 1fc2 �c3 wxrs e6 Wxe6+

on the h l -aS diagonal. Black can still parry this threat but we see that in this game he can never act, but only react.

14

�c6 5 a3 d6)

6 7 s 9 10

Castling is still denied to Black: 14 ... � 15 �d4 with devastation

.i. f5 �xfl �xbl

fe We7

IS

16

.i.g7 .i.h3 .i.dl!

lt:leS

16 Wxb7 �0 and Black still lives for a time.

16

g4

Fajarowicz 4 lLlf3 and others

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

J. xg 4 .ifS 't!t'e4 lLlgS lLle6+ 0-0...0 .if4 q;,bl

89

hS c6 q;,ds .if6 q;,cs q;,bs b6 1 -0

After, for example, 24 . . . q;,b7 , 25 lLlb5 wins.

Summary

9

0...0?

After 4 ll:lf3, 4 . . . ll:lc6 is not good

The plan with kingside castling

because of 5 a3. After 5 a3, the

does not prove very good. A very

move 6 •c2 gains significantly in

important alternative comes into

strength in comparison with lines

consideration here: 9 .

in Chapter 6 (4 •c2), as neither . . .

.tb7 I I .te2 0-� 1 2 lild l ( 12 �

.i.b4+ nor . . . otlb4 are possible.

..

b6!? 1 0 e3

lilhe8 and . . . lLlxe5) 1 2 . . . lilde8! 13 lild5 g5! . Here Black can become

c

active on the kings ide with . . .

4