Tactics in the Chess Opening 2: Open Games

3.Nxe5

A.C. van der Tak

King’s Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.f4

KG 1.3

   Tsaturian

   Seny

Tbilisi 1973

1.e4 e5 2.f4

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

2…exf4 3.Nf3 g5

To this day, the classical defence has lost nothing of its charm.

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

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

7…c6?!

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

8.g3 Bh3 9.Rf2 fxg3?

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

10.Bxf7+! Kxf7?

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

11.Ne5++ Ke6

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

12.d5+! Kxe5 13.hxg3

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

13…Bd7 14.Be3 c5 15.Ne2 Qb6

Otherwise White plays 16.Bd4+, and mate.

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

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

19…Nxd5

Or 19…Bf5 20.Bxg5 Bxd3 21.Nc3+ Kd4 22.Rf4+, and mate.

20.Bd4+! cxd4 21.Qe4+!

An elegant finale.

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

KG 1.3

   Kujawski

   Czerwonski

Slupsk 1989

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

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

7.g3?!

Better moves are 7.c3 and 7.Nc3.

7…g4

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

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

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

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

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

14…dxe4 15.c3?!

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

15…Nxd4! 16.cxd4

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

16…Qxd4+ 17.Qxd4 Bxd4+ 18.Kh1 Re8

White is utterly lost.

19.Rad1

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

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

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

23.bxc5 e2 24.Rxd4 exf1R

Mate.

KG 1.4

   Glazkov

   Soloviev

Moscow 1975

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

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

5…h6 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Nc3

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

7…Nc6

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

8.d4

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

8…d5 9.Bxf4

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

9…Bb4

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

10.Be2 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Nf6

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

12.0-0 Kg7

13.c4! dxe4

In the game Laesson-Kakhiani, Zheleznovodsk 1987, Black took a different route: 13…Nxe4 14.cxd5 Nc3 (if 14…Qxd5 then 15.c4!, as 15…Qxd4 16.Qxd4 Nxd4 fails to 17.Be5+) 15.dxc6! Nxd1 16.Be5+ Kg6 17.Bd3+ Kh5 18.cxb7 Bd7 (or 18…Bxb7 19.Rf5+) 19.bxa8Q Qxa8 20.Raxd1 Rf8 21.Rxf8 Qxf8 22.Rf1 Qe8 (after 22…Qb4, 23.Bg3 also wins. There is no remedy against the manoeuvre Rf1-e1-e5, according to Glazkov) 23.Bg3 Qg8 24.Re1, and Black resigned.

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

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

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

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

21.Bxg4 Bxg4 22.Rxg4+ Kf7

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

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

Or 26…Kd6 27.Qxh6+.

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

Black resigned.

KG 1.4

   Short

   Shirov

Las Vegas 1999

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

The Kieseritzky Variation is still regarded as the main line.

5…d6

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

6.Nxg4 Nf6 7.Nxf6+

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

7…Qxf6 8.Nc3 Nc6

Other possibilities are 8…Be6 and 8…c6.

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

This exchange sacrifice is probably incorrect. 14…f3!? 15.Qxf3 (bad is 15.Bxh6? Rxg2 16.Bg7 Qxg7 17.Qxf3 Rxb2, and Black wins) 15…Qxf3 16.gxf3 Bxc1 17.Rxc1 Rxb2 would have resulted in a roughly equal endgame.

15.Bxb2 Qxb2 16.0-0 Qxc2

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

17.Rac1!

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

17…Qxa2

18.Nd4?!

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

analysis diagram

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

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

Preventing 22…Bh3.

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

Draw.

KG 1.4

   Sanchez

   Rodriguez

Matanzas 1993

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

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

6…d6 7.Nd3 Nxe4

Black is by no means forced to gobble up this pawn at once. In Federov-Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee 2001, Black successfully inserted 7…Nc6 8.c3. Maybe White could consider 8.d5 Ne5 9.Nc3.

8.Bxf4 Qe7

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

9.Be2!

Less good is 9.Qe2?!; a frightening example is Hurt-Baca, correspondence game 1988: 9…Nc6 10.c3 Bf5! 11.Nd2 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 Re8 13.d5? (13.Nc4 was relatively better. Black can then choose between Estrin’s recommendation 13…Qd7 14.Ne3 h5, followed by 15…Bh6, and Baca’s 13…Nxc3!? 14.Qxe7 Nxa2+ 15.Kb1 Bxe7 16.Kxa2 Nxd4, with compensation for the piece) 13…Nxc3! 14.Qxe7 Nxa2+ 15.Kb1 Nxe7 16.Kxa2 Nxd5, and White resigned.

9…Nc6 10.c3

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

10…Bf5 11.d5 Nb8

11…Ne5!? may be stronger: 12.Bxe5 dxe5 13.Bxg4 Ng3 14.Rh3 h5 15.Bxf5 Nxf5, with advantage for Black, again according to Rodriguez.

12.0-0

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

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

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

16…0-0-0! 17.Bd1

17.Qxa7? is met by 17…Bg4, and wins.

17…Bg7?!

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

18.Qxa7

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

18…Nd2

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

19.Nb4!

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

19…Nxf3+

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

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

Here the players agreed a draw.

KG 2.1

   Fedorov

   Ibragimov

Katrineholm 1999

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

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

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

4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1

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

6…f5

Other possibilities are 6…Qf6 and 6…Bh6.

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

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

9…Nh5

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

10.Bg5 Be7 11.Bb5+

11…Kf7?

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

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

12.Nge2 a6

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

13.0-0+ Kg8

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

14.Ba4 Bxg5

Or 14…b5 15.Bb3 (another option is 15.Nxe4 bxa4 16.Nf4) 15…Bxg5 16.hxg5 Qxg5 17.Qd4, with a winning attack: 17…Qe5 18.Qf2, again according to Fedorov.

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

Or 17…Ng6 18.Qe6+.

18.Qxf4 Kg7 19.Nxe4

It’s all over.

19…b5 20.Bb3 Bd7 21.Nf6 h5 22.Rae1

Black resigned in view of 22…Qe7 23.Nxd7 Qxd7 24.Qf6+, followed by 25.Rxe5.

KG 2.1

   Fedorov

   Notkin

St Petersburg 1996

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

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

4.d4

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

4…g5 5.Nc3 d6 6.g3!?

Black simply meets 6.h4 with 6…Bg7.

6…fxg3 7.hxg3 Bg7 8.Bc4 Nc6

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

9.Be3 Bg4 10.0-0

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

10…Nf6 11.Qd3 0-0

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

12.Nxg5

A promising piece sacrifice, although by defending correctly Black will be able to stay afloat.

12…hxg5 13.Bxg5

13…Nb4

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

14.Qd2 c5

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

15.Rf4 Bh3 16.Qh2 Ng4?

Wrong! Correct is 16…cxd4! 17.Qxh3 dxc3 18.Raf1 cxb2 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Rg4+ Bg7 21.Rxg7+ Kxg7 22.Qg4+ Kh6 (22…Kh7? loses because of 23.Kg2), and White is forced to go for perpetual check with 23.Qh3+, as Black can now meet 23.Kg2? with 23…Qg5 24.Rh1+ Kg6, and White is finished. Thus an analysis by Hoeksema.

17.Qxh3!

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

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

Black resigned.

KG 2.1

   Salmensuu

   Blehm

Calicut 1998

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

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

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

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

7.Qe2

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

7…Bb4+!? 8.c3

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

8…0-0!

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

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

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

12…Ndxb4 13.Qc4 Nc2

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

14.Rb1

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

14…N2xd4?!

This leads to a peaceful ending. Worth considering is 14…Nxe5! 15.dxe5 Ne3 16.Qxf4 Ng4+ 17.Kg1 Bxb1 18.Qxg4 Rxe5, with slightly better play for Black, according to Shulman and Kapengut. And it is true that the position looks good for Black, as after 19.Nxb1 Black’s reply 19…Qd6, threatening 20…Qc5+, is extremely annoying.

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

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

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

Draw.

KG 2.2

   Bronstein

   Petrosian

Tbilisi 1963

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

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

4.e5 Nh5 5.Qe2

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

5…Be7 6.d4 0-0 7.g4!? fxg3 8.hxg3

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

8…Nxg3 9.Qh2 Nxh1 10.Bd3

10…g6

Alekhine has recommended 10…f5 11.exf6 g6 in this position. Bronstein had intended to continue after 10…f5 with 11.Nc3, followed by 12.Bd2, 13.0-0-0 and 14.Rxh1.

11.Qh6!?

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

11…d5 12.Nc3 Ng3 13.Ng5

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

13…Bxg5 14.Bxg5 f6 15.Bxg6 Qe7

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

16.Nxd5 Qg7 17.Bxf6!

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

17…Rxf6 18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.Qxg7+ Kxg7 20.exf6+ Kxh7 21.Nxc7 Nc6 22.Nxa8 Nxd4 23.0-0-0 Bf5

Draw.

KG 2.3

   Beninsh

   Tripolsky

Correspondence game 1992

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

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

4.Nc3 Bh4+

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

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

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

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

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

12.c3 f6 13.e6

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

13…Rad8

14.Bg2?!

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

14…Rfe8 15.Kf1

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

15…Ne5 16.Nxe5 fxe5 17.gxh4

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

17…f3! 18.Rg1

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

18…Rxe6! 19.h3

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

19…fxg2+ 20.Rxg2 Bf3

Now White is helpless.

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

White resigned.

KG 2.4

   City of Varna

   City of Sofia

City Contest by telex 1980

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

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

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

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

13.Qxe4 Re8 14.Qf3

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

14…Qe5 15.Kf2 Qc5+ 16.Kf1

16…Qe5

In the game Anderson-Horseman, Nottingham 1954, 16…Nc6? turned out to be no good on account of 17.Nc7! Kxc7 18.d4! Qc4+ (18…Qxd4 19.Qxf4+) 19.Qd3.

17.Kf2

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

17…Nc6! 18.c3

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

18…Nd4! 19.Qd3

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

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

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

23…b6!

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

24.d3 fxg1Q+ 25.Kxg1 Bb7

Draw.

KG 2.4

   Podgorny

   Stulik

Czechoslovakia 1956

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

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

5…Nxe4 6.Ne5 Nd6

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

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

7.Bb3 Bh4+

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

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

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

11.d4 b6

11…0-0 is met by 12.Qh5 again.

12.Qh5 Bb7+ 13.Kxh2 g6

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

14.Qh6

14…Bg7

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

15.Nxf7!

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

15…Bxh6

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

16.Nxd6+ cxd6

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

17.Bf7+ Ke7 18.Bxh6 Qg8

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

19.Bxg8

Black resigned.

KG 2.4

   Belotti

   Loncar

Bükfürdo 1995

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

Other possibilities are 6.Nc3 and 6.d4.

6…d5

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

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

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

10.h3

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

10…Ne3 11.Bxe3 fxe3 12.Ne5?!

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

12…Be6

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

13.Bxe6 Qxe6 14.Qf3

Black is still a pawn ahead and White has to waste some time to win it back.

14…c5! 15.Qxb7 cxd4 16.Nd5

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

16…Bd6 17.Nf3

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

17…e2

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

18.Qxa8 exf1Q+ 19.Kxf1

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

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

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

KG 2.8

   Hector

   Ziatdinov

Antwerp 1994

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

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

5…Nxd5 6.0-0 Be6

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

7.Bb3

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

7…Be7 8.c4!?

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

8…Nb6 9.d4!? Nxc4

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

10.Bxf4 c6

After 10…0-0?! 11.Qe2 b5