Schiller Eric - How To Play. The Albin Countergambit, 1991-OCR, ChessEnterprises, 101p

How to Play the
Albin C'ountergambit
by Eric Schiller
Chess Enterprises, Coraopolis

1991
Copyright 1 99 1 by Eric Schiller. All Rights Reserved.
Cover Design by E.J. Witalis Jr.
Printed in the United States of America
Published by Chess Enterprises, Coraopolis P A 15108
I S BN: 0-945470-18-5
Typesetting by M.L. Rantala for Chessworks Unlimited.
Set in Palatino, Avant Garde, and Pillsbury Times.
Manuscript completed 16 February 1991.
Revisions completed 3 October 1991
Comments and criticisms are welcome by electronic mail.
Compuserve 71361,1214
Internet: schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
GEnie: E.SCHILLER
USAT: Chessworks
The manuscript was prepared on a GT! 386sx computer and then

transferred to Macintosh computers for typesetting. ChessBase 3.0 and
NICbase were used in preparation of this manuscript.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: By Way of Introduction ......................................5
Chapter 2: White Varies at Move 3 .....................................6
Chapter 3: White Varies at Move 4 . .... ..... . .. .. ..... .... .......... .18
Chapter 4: Spasskys Variation 4.e4 .... . ..

.. ... . ..... .. ...... . .
.. ..... .27
Chapter 5: 4.Nf3 Nc6 (Introduction) ..................................39
Chapter 6: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 ..................................................... 45
Chapter 7: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 . .. . .. .. ................. . ....... . ......... .. 58..
Chapter 8: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3, Unusual Replies . . . . . ... ... . ..... . .71
.
Chapter 9: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bf5!? .

.... ........ .. . . ....... .. ........... ..... .75
Chapter 10: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Be6 . .. .. . .. ....... . .... .... ....... .. ... .... ... . 78
. .
Chapter 11: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4.. .... ..

. ....... . ... . .. ...
. . . . ........ . .. 89
.. ...
Chapter 1 : By Way of Introduction
WilIiam Cook [The Chess Player's Compendium, 1 902): The

Queen's Counter Gambit 2 ... P-K4 is a modern invention which is being
adopted of late by a few leading players. The sacrifice of the K-P is
apparently sound, as it is merely temporary, yet it gives much scope to
Black if he be an attacking player.
Carl Schlechter [Bilguer Handbuch): A clear refutation of the
gambit has not yet been found.
Siegbert Tarrasch [Die Verteidigung des Damengambits): The
countergambit 2...e5, which arose in the 1890's and was played for a
considerable time by attacking players such as Pillsbury and Marshall,
is now only seen on occasion is by no means to be rejected. It is a form of
the Falkbeer gambit on the queenside. But whereas in the Falkbeer
proper there is a compromising of the position due to the advance of the
f-pawn, here the White position is fully compact and there is little to
attack. White usually develops his King's bishop at g2, which in this
gambit can be quite menacing, especially when Black castles long, and
his own king is secured against all attacks on the kingside. The strong
pawn at d4 provides strong pressure on the White game, but it can, like
all center pawns, become weak. But the White pawn at e5 is also weak,
and it can be surrounded, leading to rough equality. I can't declare that
the gambit is fully sound, but even less can I say that it is incorrect. I can
subscribe to the opinion expressed by Schleckter in the Bilguer
handbuch: A clear refutation of the Gambit hs not yet been found.
WaIter Korn [MCD VIII): The Albin Counter Gambit is viewed
with doubt as to its value and practical results, and yet with respect in
regard to its theoretical soundness and inherent dangers a refutation
has NOT been found so far.
V. Panov [Course of Openings 1957): This strategically interesting
conception of a counterattacking opening was discoverd at the end of the
last century by the Rumanian Master Albin. It hasn't lost its meaning in
our time, though it is rarely taken up. (This opinion remains verbatim
in the 1980 edition!)
Jonathan Tisdall [BCD II): The Albin is an infrequent choice that
has probably been underestimated. White is well advised to spurn the
prospect of a material plus in return for the bishop pair and a small but
tangible edge.
Chapter 2: White Varies at Move 3
In this Chapter we examine some fairly trivial deviations early

in the game.
Game '1
Karu-Keres
Estonian Correspondence Championship, 1931
1.d4 d5
2.c4 e5
3.Nc3
This is not an effective reply to the Albin because Black can gain
time by capturing at d4. Another innocuous line is Bot-Rojahn Moscow
01,1956 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.e3 exd4 5.Qxd4 Qxd4 6.exd4 Nc6
7.Be3 Nf6 8Nc3 Bb4 9.Bd3 0-0 10.Nge2 Bg4 lU3 Rfe8 12.Bf2 Be6 13.0-0
Ne7 with full equality for Black. Or 4.dxe5 Qxe5 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2
Q.e7 =, Vuji-Metge,Novi Sad 01 1990.
3... exd4
This capture can be delayed, but it is probably best played

immediately. An argument for the other side can be seen in Allies-Em.
Lasker, Burnley 1908:3...Nc6 4.e3 exd4 5.Nxd5 Nf6 6.Nf3 Nxd5 7.cxd5
Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Qxd5 9Nxd4 0-0 10Nf3 Rd8 11.Qc2 Bf5 12.Qcl Be4 13.Bc4
QaS 14.a3 Bxd2+ 15.Nxd2 Bxg2 16.Rgl Ne5 17.b4 Rxd2!! 18.Rxg2 Nf3+
19.I<fl Qh5 20.Ra2 Rxa2 21.Bxa2 Qb5+ 0-1.
4.Qxd4 Nc6
5.Qxd5 Be6
6.Qb5
Chapter 2: Whate Varies at Move 3 7
6.QxdB+ RxdB 7.e3 Nb4 is clearly better for Black.
6... a6
7.Qa4
7.Qxb7 is met by 7...Nd4 with a clear advantage for Black.
7 ... Bb4
7...BcS!? 8.e3 Qf6 9.Nf3 0-0-0 10.Bd2 Nh6 11.Rd1 Ng4 with very
strong pressure, Mes-ller-Kozelek, Correspondence 1931.
B.Bd2
B.a3 bS! 9.cxbS Nd4 10.bxa6+ (10.Qxb4 Nc2+ -+) c6 11.axb4 Rxa6
12.Qxa6 Nc2+ mate!
B... Bxc4
9.a3 bS!
10.Qc2 Nd4
Black already has a strong initiative.
11.Qe4+ Be7
12.Nf3 cS
13.Rc1 Nf6
14.Qbl Qd6!
15.Nxd4 cxd4
16.Ne4 Nxe4
17.Qxe4 0-0
1B.Bf4 QdB
19.Rd1 Bf6
8 How to Plav the Albln Countergambit
Black's pieces are fully developed and coordinated, and he has a
strong cramp on the White forecourt which makes it impossible for
White to attend to the important task of getting his pieces into the
game.
20.Qf3 Re8
White is paralyzed!
4i
21.b3 d3!
22.e4 Bc3+
23.Bd2 Qd4
24.Bxc3 Qxc3+
25.Rd2 Rxe4+
and White resigned because of 26.Qxe4 Qcl+ 27.Rd1 d2 mate. 0-1.
Game #2
Marshall-Duras
Carlsbad, 1901
1.d4 d5
2.c4 e5
3.Nc3 exd4
4.Qxd4 Nc6
5.Qxd5 Be6
6.Qb5 a6
7.Qa4 BM
8.e3
A move much too lightly dismissed by Lamford.
8... Qf6
8.. Bxc3+ is miscited by Lamford as the move actually played,

.
and he further claims that the resulting position is good for Black.
9.bxc3 is properly evaluated by Marco and Schlechter as better for
White, who will be able to use the b-file and establish a dOminating
bishop at a3.
Chapter 2: Whate Varies at Move 3 9
9.Bd2 0-0-0
10.Nf3 Nh6
l1.Rdl
11.0-0-0 Ng4!-Marco & Schlechter.
11... Ng4
12.Be2 Qh6
1 3.a3!
13.0-0 Bxc4! 14.Bxc4 NceS lS.h3 Nxf3+ 16.gxf3 Qxh3 17.Be6+!!

(17.fxg4? Qxg4+ 18.Kh2 Rd6 19.e4 Rg6 wins for Black) fxe6 18.fxg4
Marco & Schlechter.
13 ... Bxc3
14.Bxc3 Rxdl+
lS.Qxdl Rd8
16.Qc2 f6
Although White has an extra pawn and the bishop pair, his king
is much more vulnerable than his counterpart.
17.h3 NgeS
18.NxeS NxeS
19.BxeS fxeS
By giving up the power of the bishop pair, White has made the
path to victory more difficult, but the well-placed knight was a
formidable opponent.
20.Qe4 Qf6
21.Bf3 c6
10 How to Play the Albin Countergambit
22.Bg4
White continues to liquidate, but an extra pawn in a heavy

artillery endgame is not often decisive.
22 ... Bxg4
22 ...Rd7 comes into consideration e.g. 23.Bxe6 (23.Qxh7 Bxg4

2 4.hxg4 Qd8 with counterplay.) 23...Qxe6 24.Qxh7 Qxc4 traps the king
in the center.
23.hxg4
23.Qxg4+ Kb8 24.0-0 Rd2 provides compensation.
23... Qd6
24.0-0 g6
2S.f4!
This is the best way to create an open line on which the Rfl can
operate.
2S ... exf4
26.exf4 Qc5+
27.Kh2 Rd4
28.Qe8+ Kc7
29.Rel Kb6
3O.Re7 Rdl
3O...Qxc4 is met by 31.Qb8. While 30...Rxc4 runs into 3l.Qd7.
31.Qf7 Qgl+
32.Kg3 as
33.Rxb7+?
Chapter 2: White Varies at Move 3 11
33.b4 axb4 34.axb4 Ka6 3S.bS+ KaS! 36.bxc6 bxc6 37.Ra7+ wins
Marco & Schlechter.
33... Ka6
34.Rb3
34.b4? Qel+ 3S.Kh3 Rd3+ 36.Kh2 Qh4+ 37.Kgl Rdl+
34... Qel+
3S.Kh3 Qhl+
36.Kg3 Qel+
37.Kf3 Qf1+
38.Kg3 Qel+
39.Kf3 Qf1+
Drawn
3.e3 is not a very aggressive move, and it causes little difficulty

for Black.
Game '3
Tarrasch-Alekhine
SLPetersburg, 1914
l.d4 dS
2.c4 eS
3.e3 exd4
4.exd4
4.Qxd4? is just a waste of time. 4.. Nf6 and now:
a) S.cxdS QxdS 6.Nf3 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6= Kuhl-Brumm, Berlin 1984.

Subsequent play turned out well for Black: 8.Be2 cS 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.b3 Be7
I1.Bb2 0-0 12.0-0 BfS 13.Nc3 Rfd8 14.Rfdl bS IS.Rxd8+ Rxd8 16.Rdl
Rxdl+ 17.Bxdl Nb4 18.Nel Ne4 19.a3 Nd3 20.Nxd3 Nxc3 21.Bc2 Ndl!
22.Bal c4 23.bxc4 bxc4 24.Nel Bxc2 2S.Nxc2 c3 26.Kil fS 27.Ke2 Nb2
28Nb4 Bxb4 29.axb4
White can't approach the pawn, and cannot afford to capture at

b2. The rest is simple.
29 ...Kf7 30.g4 g6 31.gxfS gxfS 32.e4 f4 33.Kf3 Ke6 34.Kxf4 Nd3+

3S.Ke3 c2 36.Bb2 Nxb2 37.Kd2 Nd3 and White resigned.
b) S.Nc3 Nc6 6.Qdl BfS 7.f3 Nb4 B.Qa4+ Qd7 9.Qxd7+ Kxd7 10.e4
dxe4 11.fxe4 Nxe4 12.Rbl Nc2+ 13.Kdl Nf2+ 14.Ke2 BcS lS.Nf3 Bd3+
16.Kd2 Be3+ 0-1, Dodge-Houghteling, Chicago 1906.
4... Nf6
S.Nc3 Be 7
For S...c6 see Kashdan-Maroczy, Bled 1931.
6.Nf3
6.cxdS NxdS 7.Bc4 Nf6 B.Nf3 0-0 9.NeS (9.Qb3 is suggested by

Lamford. The threat is 10.Bxf7 Rxf7 l1.NeS, though it is not clear how
serious that is. It also avoids the pin with 10...Bg4. Black can play
9...Nc6, threatening both Nxd4 and NaS, so it looks like the following
line is forced. 10.Bxf7+ Rxf7 11.NgS QeB 12.Nxf7 Qxf7 13.Qxf7+ Kxf7
14.Be3 Be6 lS.0-0 RdB and the active pieces are stonger than the rook.)
9.. Nc6! The damage to the pawn structure will be outweighed by the
open lines and the control of the critical dS-square. 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.0-0
RbB 12.h3 (12.Bb3 Be6 13.Be3 is suggested by Lamford. 13...Bxb3 14.axb3
NdS lS.NxdS QxdS 16.Rxa7 Rxb3 17.Rxc7 Bd6 IB.Rxc6 Rxb2 19.Qc1 RfbB)
12 ... NdS 13.NxdS cxdS 14.Bb3 Be6 lS.Be3?! (1S.Bf4 Bd6 16.Bxd6 Qxd6
17.Rcl RfcB IB.RcS=) lS ... Bd6 16.Rc1 Qh4 17.Qf3 KhB IB.Rc2 fS!
19.BxdS? (19.Rel RbeB) lS ... BxdS 20.QxdS f4 21.Bd2 f3! 22.QgS Qe4
23.Rfc1 Rf6 24.Qe3 Qg6 2S.g4 (2S.QgS QxgS 26.BxgS Rg6) 2S...Bf4 26.Qc3
(26.Qxf4 Rxf4 27.Bxf4 hS 2B.Rxc7 (2B.gS QfS) hxg4 29.h4 g3! 30.RcB+
RxcB 31.RxCB+ Kh7 32.Bxg3 Qbl+ 33.Kh2 Qf1 and Black wins--Kostic.)
26.Qc3 Qh6 27.Qxc7 RbfB 0-1, Walter-Kostic, Trencianske Teplice 1926.
6... 0-0
7.Be2
7.cxd5 Nxd5 S.Be2 Nc6 9.0-0 Bf6 10.Ne4 Be7 11.Ne5 Ndb4 12.Nxc6
Nxc6 13.d5 Nb4 14.Bc4 Bf5 15.Qf3 was played in Tekavcic-Kostic,
Yugoslav Championship 1946. Now Black should play 15... Qd7! with
an even game, according to Kostic.
7 ... Be6
S.Ng5 Bf5
9.0-0 Nc6
10.Be3 Nb4
11.Rc1 dxc4
12.Bxc4 c6
13.Nf3 Nbd5
14.Ne5 Nxc3
15.bxc3 Bd6
16.Re1 Qc7
Black can be fully satisfied with his position.
17.Bf4 Nd5
l S.Bg3 RaeS
19.Bd3 Bxd3
20.Qxd3 f6
21.Nf3 Bxg3
22.hxg3 Qa5
23.c4 Nb6
24.Qb3 Qa4
25.Qxa4 Nxa4
26.c5 Rxe1+ 27.Nxe1 ReS 2S.Kf1 Re4 29.Rc4 Nb2 30.Rc2 Na4 31.Rc4
b5 32.cxb6 Nxb6 33.Rxc6 Rxd4 34.Rc7 Rd7 35.Rc2 Rd4 36.Rc7 Rd7 Drawn.
Game #4
Kashdan-Maroczy
Bled, 1931
l.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.e3 exd4 4.exd4 Nf6 S.Nc3 c6
This is a playable alternative to S... Be7.
S...Bb4 was suggested by Maroczy. Kmoch suggests that c7-c6

should be played only as a matter of necessity, but since Black obtains a
fine game, I don't understand the criticism. It is interesting that
S ... Bb4!? has never been played.
6.Nf3 Be7
6...Be6 7.Qb3 Na6 is equal, according to Tartakower. B.Qxb7 Nb4

9.cxdS NfxdS 10.NxdS BxdS lI.Kdl Bxf3+ 12.gxf3 Qxd4+ wins for
Black- Analysis.
7.Bd3 0-0
B.O-O dxc4
9. Bxc4 Nbd7
10.ReI Nb6
Black adopts the classical strategy of blockading the IQP with

knights, and enjoys the support of a pawn at c6. White should now turn
to a kingside attack in keeping with the spirit of the structure.
11.Bb3 NbdS
I2.Bd2 Be6
I2...Bg4! I3.h3 Bxf3 I4.Qxf3 Qd7-Kmoch. The placement of the

knights outweighs the bishop pair.
13.Rc1 ReB
I4.Na4 Nd7
IS.h3 RcB
I6.Bc2 rP
I6... bS is perhaps playable here, without the kingside weakness
created by g7-g6. I7.Nc3 (17.NcS NxcS IB.dxcS Bf6 I9.b4 as 20.bxaS b4-
Kmoch. Black has very strong pressure on the queenside.) Nxc3 IB.Bxc3
as with counterplay-Kmoch.
Chapter 2: WhHe Varies at Move 3 15
17.a3 b5?!
17...Bf6! is the correct move. The weakening of the queeside comes

back to haunt Black.
lB.Nc3 Nxc3
19.Bxc3 Nb6
20.Bb3 Nd5
20...Bxb3 21.Qxb3 Qd5 is suggested by Kmoch. If White exchanges

Queens, then he is left with the bad bishop in the endgame. Black
should be in no danger here.
21.Ne5 a6
21...Nxc3 22.Rxc3 Bxb3 23.Qxb3 Qd5 24.Nxc6!-Kmoch.
22.Qf3 Bg5
23.Rc2 Kg7
24.Nxc6 Rxc6
25.Bxd5 Bxd5
26.RxeB QxeB
26...Bxf3 27.RxdB Bdl 2B.d5+ Rxc3 29.Rxc3 BxdB 30.RcB winning a

bishop-Kmoch.
27.Qxd5 Bf6
2B.Qf3 Rc4
29.Qd3 QcB
3O.d5 Bxc3
31.Rxc3 Rxc3
32.bxc3
32.Qxc3+? Qxc3 33.bxc3 Kf6 34.Kfl Ke5 35.Ke2 Kxd5 36.Kd3 f5

and Black is clearly better.
32... Qc4
33.Qxc4 bxc4
34.f4! Resigns.
Game #S
Tartakower-Reti
Vienn 1909
l.d4 dS 2.c4 e5 3.e3 exd4 4.exd4
This position can also arise from the French, via 1.e4 e6 2.d4 dS
3.exdS exdS 4.c4.
4... Nf6
5.Nf3 Be6
Vidmar-Tartakower, Carlsbad 1907 saw Black choose an inferior

continuation: 5... Bb4+ 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Be2 Be6 B.Qb3 cS 9.0-0 Nc6 10.dxcS d4
I1.Rdl Bxc5 12.Bg5 b6 13.a3 h6 14.Bh4 Qe7 IS.Nd5 BxdS 16.cxd5 Qxe2
17.dxc6 gS IB.Bg3 RacB 19.Rel Qa6 20.c7 Qb7 21.Qd3 NhS 22.Be5 Qd5
23.Qf5 Ng7 24.Qf6 Qxe5 25.Nxe5 1-0.
6.Nc3 Be7
7.Qb3 Nc6
B.c5! 0-0
9.Qxb7 Bd7
10.Qb3 ReB
11.Be2 Bg4
12.Be3 Rb8
13.Qa4 Bd7
14.Bb5 Nb4!
15.Qxb4
15.Bxd7 Nd3+ 16.Ke2 Nxb2 17.Bxe8 Nxa4 IB.Bxa4 Rb2+ 19.Nd2

with compensation.
15 ... Bxb5
16.Nxb5 a6
17.a4 Ng4
IB.O-O c6
19.Bf4 Rb7
Chapter 2: WhHe Varies at Move 3 17
20.h3 Nf6
21.Ne5 Qc8
22.Qc3 axbS
23.aS Ne4
24.Qf3
24.Qd3!? comes strongly into consideration.
24... Bf 6
25.b4 BxeS
26.Bxe5 Nd2
27.QhS
27.Qg3 f6 28.Bxf6 Ne4! wins for Black.
27... Nxfl
28.Rxfl
28.Bxg7 Nd2! 29.Bf6 Ne4 30.Rel(30.Qh6 Nxf6 31.QgS+ Kf8

32.Qh6+ Ke7 33.Rel+ Kd7 wins) Qe6 and Black wins.
28... f6
29.Bd6 Re4
30.f3 Qe8!
31.QfS Rxd4
32.Kh2 Rxb4
33.Rel Qxel
34.Qc8+ Kf7
35.Qxb7+ Kg6
36.Qxc6 Qe6
37.a6 Rb2
38.h4 hS
39.f4 Qe4
Resigns
Chapter 3: White Varies at Move 4
Game #6
Sagalchik-Reprintsev
Roslavl 1989
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.a3
4... Nc6
Dixon & Labatt-Em. Lasker, New Orleans, 1907 saw Black

achieve a decent game with 4...cS S.g3 Nc6 6.Nf3 Nge7 7.Bg2 Ng6 S.Bf4
f6. The subsequent actions against his king failed to do any damage, and
after 9.exf6 Nxf4 10.f7+ Kxf7 l1.gxf4 Qf6 12.Ng5+ KeS Black had the
advantage. The game continued 13.BdS h6 14.Ne4 Qxf4 IS.Nbd2 Ne7
16.Qa4+ Bd7 17.Qb3 NxdS IS.cxdS b6 19.0-0-0 c4 20.Qg3 QfS 21.Qf3 QeS
22.Kbl RcS 23.Ka2 KdS 24.Ng3 Bd6 2S.Qe4 Ba4 26.Rc1 bS 27.Nf3 Qxe4
2S.Nxe4 Bf4 29.Rcgl ReS 30.Nxd4 Rxe4 31.Ne6+ Rxe6 32.dxe6 BeS 33.f4
Bxf4 34.Rxg7 Rc7 3S.Rf7 Bd6 36.Rgl Rxf7 37.exf7 BfS 3S.Rg6 Ke7 39.Ra6
Kxf7 40.Rxa7+ Ke6 41.Kbl KdS 42.Rf7 Bd6 43.Rf6 Bxh2 44.Rxh6 Bf4
4S.Rb6 Kd4 46.Re6 BgS 47.ReS c3 4S.bxc3+ Kxc3 49.RfS Kd2 SO.ReS Be3
Sl.Kb2 Bd4+ S2.Kbl Be3 S3.Kb2 Kxe2 54.Re4 Kd3 SS.Rh4 Bd4+ S6.Ka2
Kc4 S7.Kbl Bdl SS.Ka2 Bf3 S9.Rh3 BdS 60.Kbl Bc3 61.Ka2 Bg7 62.Kbl
KcS 63.Kc2 Kb6 64.Kbl KaS 6S.Kc2 Bc4 66.Rg3 BfS 67.Kb2 Ka4 68.Rf3
Bg7+ 69.Kc2 BeS 70.Re3 Bd6 71.Kb2 BdS 72.Rh3 BeS+ 73.Kc2 Be4+
74.Kc1 BfS 7S.Rf3 Bg4 76.Rd3 Be6 77.Rf3 Bb3 7S.RfS Bd6 79.Kbl Bxa3
0-1.
S.e3
There are alternatives, but they are not troublesome:
a) S.f4 Be6 6.e4 f6 7.fS fxeS S.fxe6? Qh4+ 9.Kd2 Qxe4 1O.Nf3 Bb4+!
and White resigned in Shearer,H.-Shearer,c., Sydney 1939, because of
11.axb4 Qe3+ 12.Kc2 Nxb4+.
b) 5.Bf4 Nge7 6.Nf3 Bg4 see the 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 lines. On 6.Bg3 Black
can also try 6...NfS,e.g. Kluxen-Em. Lasker, Hamburg (casual), 1904:
7.Qd3 Qg5 8.f4 Qh6 9.Nh3 Ne3 10.Nf2 Bf5 11.Ne4 Bb4+! 12.Nbd2
Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Qg6 14.Qb3 Bxe4 15.Bf2 Na5 0-1
c) 5Nf3 transposes to 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 lines.
5 ... Bf5
There are several playable alternatives. Here are two examples:
a) 5...Bc5 6.b4 Nxb4!? 7.axb4 Bxb4+ 8.Bd2 dxe3! 9.fxe3 Qh4+ 10.g3
Qe4 1l.Qf3 Qxe5 12.Ra2 Bxd2+ 13.Nxd2 Ne7 14.Ne2 Bd7 15.Bg2 0-0
16.0-0 Bc6 17.Qf4 Qh5 18.Bxc6 Nxc6 19.Qf3 Qe5 20.Qf4 Qh5 1/2, Elliot
larshall, simultaneous 1914.
b) 5 ...a5 6.Nf3 &5 7.Be2 Nge7 8.0-0 Ng6 9.exd4 Nxd4 10.Nc3 0-0 with
a good game for Black, according to Bardeleben in Deutsches
Wochenschach.
6.Nf3 dxe3
7.Qxd8+ Rxd8
8.Bxe3 Nge7
9.Nc3 Ng6
1O.Nb5
1O.Be2 a6= Cohn-Wolf, Munich 1900.
10... Rd7
Even though White temporarily retains his extra pawn, his

forces are scattered and he needs time to regroup.
1l.Nfd4 Nxd4
12.Nxd4 Bg4
13.f3 Bc5!
14.Rd1 Bh5
How to Play the Albin Countergambit
15.g4 Nxe5
16.gxh5 Bxd4
17.Bxd4 Nxf3+
18.Kf2 Nxd4
with a clear advantage for Black-Analysis.
15... Bxd4
16.Bxd4 Nxe5!
17.Bxe5 Re7
The pin will regain the piece, leading to a dead drawn endgame.
18.Kf2 Rxe5
Black has achieved a fully equal position.
19.94 Bg6
20.Bg2 Re7
21.Rhel h5
22.h3 hxg4
23.hxg4 f5
24.b4 c6
25.b5 cxb5
26.gxf5 Bxf5
27.cxb5 b6
28.Rcl Drawn.
Game #7
Janowsky-Marshall
Suresne (mIlO), 1908
l.d4 d5
2.c4 e5
3.dxe5 d4
4.h3
This move isn't even mentioned by Lamford! Its sole purpose is to

avoid Bg4, but Black can choose plans with Be6, making the advance of
the h-pawn a waste of time.
4... Nc6
5.Nf3
5... Bf5
5 Be6 is a fully playable and logical alternative.

...
6.g4 Be4
7.Bf4 f6
7...Bxf3 8.exf3 Bb4+ 9.Nd2 Nge7 10.a3 Bxd2+ 1l.Qxd2 Ng6 is a

promising alternative.
8.Nbd2 Bxf3
9.exf3 fxe5
10.Bg3
Already Black has control of the center, especially since the

weak dS-square cannot be occupied by a White piece.
10... d3
22 How to Play the A1bin Countergambit
An ambitious move in true Marshall style. But simple develop
ment would have been a more cautious approach without the risks
entailed by this advance.
I1.Qa4 Qf6
12.Bxd3 Bb4
13.0-0-0 RdS
13...Bxd2+ 14.Rxd2 Qxf3 IS.Rel exposes Black's lack of develop

ment.
14.Be4 Bxd2+
IS.Rxd2 Rxd2
16.Kxd2
White's king is now very exposed and his pieces are out of play.
But he can remedy the situation quickly.
16... Nge7
17.Kc1! 0-0
White has put his house in order and there is no longer any
compensation for the pawn.
IS.Rdl Qh6+
19.Kbl Qxh3
More risks. The opening of the h-file can only work to White's
advantage. But Black was no doubt chafing at his passive position.
20.cS!
A useful move, gaining space and allowing the queen to take a

more active role in the proceedings.
20 ... h5
21.Qc4+ KhS
22.Qcl h4
23.Rhl Qxhl
24.Qxhl g;
2S.Bxh4 gx h4
26.Qxh4+ Kg7
All pretty much forced, and Black faces a serious material deficit
with no compensating activity.
27.Qh7+ Kf6
28.g5+ Ke6
29.Qh6+ Kf7
30.g6+ Ke8
31.g7 RgS
32.Qh5+ Kd8
33.Qf7 Nb8
34.Bh7 ReS
3S.Bg6 Nxg6
36.Qxg6 Resigns.
Game #S
Lorch-Michell
London,. 1903
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxe5 d4 4.f4
4... Nc6
This is not the only move. 4... Ne7 5.e4 cS 6.Bd3 Nbc6 7.a3 g5 B.Nf3
gxf4 9.Bxf4 Bg4 10.Bg3 Ng6 11.e6 Bxe6 12.h3 Bg7 13.Nbd2 Qe7 14.Qc2
Nce5 Black has achieved full equality. Now White walks into a
blizzard. 15.0-0-07 Nxd3+ 16.Qxd3 0-0 17.h4 h5 IB.Rdfl b5! with a
powerful attack, O'Niell-Larzelere, Correspondence 1967.
5.Nf3 f6
A typically strong gambit. If White plays 6.exf6, then after

6...Nxf6 Black has a lead in development and a big clamp on the
forecourt, which is already weak with a gaping hole at e3.
6.e4 fxe5
7.fxe5
7.Nxe5?' Nxe5 8.fxe5 Qh4+with a clear advantage for Black.
7... Bg4
B.Bf4 Bb4+
9.Nbd2 Nge7
10.a3 0-0
Rarely does a player have an opportunity to castle with tempo!

The pressure on the f-file is now intense.
11.Bg3 Bxd2+
12.Kxd2
12.Qxd2 Bxf3! (12...Rxf3 13.gxf3 Bxf3 14.Rgl Bxe4 15.0-0-0 Ng6

16.Bd3 Bxd3 17.Qxd3 Ncxe5 IB.Bxe5 Nxe5 19.Qe4! Nc6 20.Qe6+ KhB
21.Rdfl +/-) 13.gxf3 Rxf3 14.0-0-0 NaS! with a strong attack for Black.
12... Ng6
13.Be2 d3!
14.Bxd3 Ngxe5
15.Qc2 Bxf3
16.gxf3 Rxf3
Resigns
Game #9
Peev-Pantalyeev
Bulgaria, 1973
l.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.e3?
And these remaining minor alternatives:
a) 4.Bf4 gS S.Bd2 Nc6 6.g3 NxeS 7.Bg2 c6 8.Qc1 h6 9.Nf3 Nxf3+

10.Bxf3 Bh3 with a clear advantage for Black. Wellner-Bunt,
Groningen 1948.
b) 4.Bd2 Nc6 S.Nf3 Bg4 6.Qb3 Qd7 7.Na3 Bxa3 8.Qxa3 Nge7 9.g3 d3
lO.Rd1 Bxf3 11.exf3 NxeS 12.Bg2 Nxc4 13.Qb3 Qe6+ -+ Duffo-Calduch,
Barcelona 1935.
4 ... Bb4+
S.Bd2
a) S.Nd2 dxe3 6.fxe3 Qh4+ 7.g3 Qe4 8.Qf3 QxeS 9.a3 Bxd2+ 10.Kxd2
Be6 with a clear advantage for Black. Garrido-Diaz Barcena,
Marianao 1946.
b) S.Ke2 Nc6 6.exd4 Nxd4+ 7.Ke3 BcS and Black stands much better
Lamford.
5... dxe3
6.Qa4+
a) 6.Bxb4 exf2+ 7.Ke2 fxg1N+ 0-1, Korody-Balogh, 1933.
b) 6.fxe3 Qh4+ 7.g3 Qe4 8.Qf3 Bxd2+ 9.Nxd2 QxeS with a clear
advantage for Black-Lamford.
6... Nc6!
7.Bxb4 exf2+
Falk, Boyarkov & Blumenfeld-Lasker, Moscow (Consultation

game) 1899 saw instead 7...Qh4 8Ne2 Qxf2+ 9.Kd1 Bg4 10Nbc3 0-0-0+
11.Bd6 cxd6 12.e6 fxe6 13.Kc1 Nf6 14.b4 d5 15.b5 Ne5 16.cxd5 Nxd5
17.Qc2 Nb4 18.Nd1+ Nxc2 19.Nxf2 Rd2 0-1.
8.Kxf2
8 ... Qh4+
9.g3
a) 9.Ke3 Qd4+ 10.Kf3 Bg4+ 11.Kg3 Nh6 12.h3 Nf5+ 13.Kh2 Qf4+ 0-1,
Linske-Kjelberg, Malmo 1917.
b) 9.Ke2 Qxc4+ -+ N.Nikolic-Mozny, Prague 1986.
9... Qd4+
10.Kg2 Qxb2+
11.Nd2 Qxa1
Black has emerged with an extra pawn and freer development.
12Ngf3 Qb2
13.a3 Bg4
Resigns.
Chapter 4: Spassky's Variation 4.e4
This is a fairly popular move for White. It establishes a strong

center, but has the drawback of leaving the Bft without much to do.
Game #10
Janowski-Maroczy
Munich, 1900
l.d4 dS 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e4
4... Nc6
S.Bf4 Nge7
6.Bg3
6.Nf3 Ng6 7.Bg3 Bg4 8.Be2 Bb4+ 9.Kft 0-0 10.a3 Be7 I1.Qb3 Bxf3
12.gxf3 Ngxe5 13.f4 Na5 14.QbS d3! 15.fxe5 dxe2+ 16.Kxe2 c6 17.Qa4
Qb6 18.Nd2 Rad8 19.Qc2 Rxd2+!? 20.Qxd2 Nxc4 21.Qd3 Qa6 22.Kf3 f5
with plenty of compensation, Senchovici-Ianovici, Correspondence
1934/35.
6... h5
7.h3?!
7.h4 Ng6 8.f4 (8.Nf3 Bg4 9.Be2 Bxf3-Meinsohn. 10.gxf3 Ngxe5

11.Bxe5 Nxe5 12.f4 Bb4+ 13.Nd2 Ng6 with a clear advantage for
Black-Analysis.) Be7 9.Nf3 Bg4 10.Nbd2 d3 11.Qb3 Nb4 12.0-0-0 a5
-I + -Lamford.
7... g5
A typically active move from Maroczy.
8.h4 g4
9.Nd2 Ng6
10.f4 Be7
Black's forces are actively posted, while White's lie idle.
11.Bd3 NxM
12.Qe2 Ng6
13.e6!
The best chance to achieve some active play. If the pawn is

captured, then 14.e5 will create opportunities. But Maroczy has a
clever reply.
13... h4!
14.Qxg4
a) 14.exf7+ Kxf7 15.e5 (15.f5 Nge5 16.Bxe5 Nxe5 and White is

suffocating.) hxg3 16.Bxg6+ Kxg6 17.RxhS QxhS with a clear advantage
for Black.
b) 14.f5 hxg3 15.fxg6 Rxh1 16.g7 Rxg1+ 17.Nfl Bb4+! 1S.Kd1 Ke7
19.Qxg4 Bxe6 and Black wins.
14... Bxe6!
15.f5 BcS
16.Bh2 Nge5
17.Qe2 Nxd3+
1S.Qxd3 Nb4
19.Qb3 as
Material is even, but Black has a commanding lead in space. It is

important that the knight be driven from b4, so 20.a3 was called for.
Chapter 4: Spassky's Variation 4.e4
20.Nh3? a4
21.Qdl Nd3+
22.Kfl Nxb2
23.Qg4 Ra6!
A marvelous defensive move which allows the rook to sweep the

board along the 6th rank. White's forces, on the other hand, are in
mmplete disarray.
24.Nf4 KfB!
25.NdS Rc6
Black has erected sturdy defences and will soon control the g-file.
26.BeS RgB
27.Qh5 BgS!
28.NfJ Nxc4!
29.f6 Ne3+
30.Nxe3 Bxe3
31.Rdl Bg4
32.QxM Bxf3
33.gxf3 Rc2
34.Bxd4
34... QaS!?
A strange an unnecessary conception. Better was 34... Bxd4!

35.Qh6+ KeS 36.Qg7 Qxf6! 37.QxgS+ Ke7 3S.Rd3 Qf4!! and mate is
coming.
35.Rd3??
35.Ba7! b6!! 36.Qh3! Bg5! 37.Rd7 QeS 3S.BbS! QxbS 39.Rxf7+ Kxf7
40.Qh7+ Kxf6 41.e5+ Ke6! 42.Qxc2 Qb7! 43.Qc4+ Qd5 44.Qg4+ Kxe5 and
White must give it up. This line is in Barcza's commentary, though it
may derive from another source-my Hungarian isn't up to the task of
sorting that out.
35... Qa6
Resigns.
Game #11
Jan owsky-Marshall
Suresne (m/S), 1908
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bg4
6.Qb3
6.Bf4 Bb4+ (6...f6?! 7.exf6 Nxf6 S.Bd3 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 0-0 10.0-0 Bxd2
Chapter 4: Spassky's Variation 4.e4 31
l1.Nbxd2 Ne5 12.c5 += Salvioli-Calvalotti, Milan 1881. According to
Lamford, this was the first Albin Gambit ever played!) 7.Nbd2 Qe7
gives Black full compensation for his pawn.
6... Bb4+
7.Nfd2 Qh4
8.a3 Bxd2+
9.Nxd2 0-0-0
Black's easy development is well worth the investment of a

pawn.
10.g3 Qh5
11.f4 g5
Lamford cites this game as continuing 11...d3 with a strong
initiative for Black. Indeed, 11 d3 is the best move, but it was not
..
played in this game. Perhaps there was another game from this match
not in my files.
12.Qd3 gxf4
13.gxf4 Nge7
14.Rg1 Rhg8
15.Rg2 Be 6
16.Rf2 Rg1
17.Nf3 Rh1
18.Bd2 f6
19.exf6 Nf5!
20.0-0-0 N e3
21.Bxe3 dxe3
22.Qxe3 Rxd1+
23.Kxd1 Bxc4
24.Qe1 Qc5!
It seems that Black must settle for the draw.
24 ... Nd4 25.Qc3 Nxf3 26.Qxf3 Qxf3+ 27.Rxf3 Rxfl+ 28.Rxfl Bxfl
29.f7 and White wins.
25.Bh3+ Kb8
26.Qxh1 Bb3+
27.Ke2 Qc4+
28.Ke3 Qc5+
29.Ke2 Qc4+
30.Ke3 Qc5+
31.Ke2 Qc4+
32.Kd2 Qc2+
33.Ke3 Qc5+
Drawn.
Game #U
Tarrasch-Caro
Vienna,. 1898
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e4 Nc6 5.f4 f6
5...g5 is no longer considered playable. Two examples:
a) Korchnoi-Shapkin, Moscow, 1949: 6.f5 Nxe5 7.Nf3 Nxf3+ 8.Qxf3

Qf6 9.Bd3 Bd6 10.e5 Bxe5 11.Nd2 Qe7 12.0-0 f6 13.c5 Qxc5 14.Nc4 Kd8
IS.b4 Qc6 16.NxeS fxeS 17.BxgS+ Ne7 1B.f6 1-O.
b) Burn-Schlechter, Munich, 1900: 6.Bd3 gxf4 7.Bxf4 Nge7 B.Bg3 Ng6

9.QhS Bb4+ 10.Ke2 Be6 I1.Nf3 Qd7 12.h3 Be7 13.a3 NaS 14.Nbd2 cS
IS.Rhc1 Nc6 16.Kf2 RgB 17.b3 0-0-0 IB.Bh2 RdfB 19.Rgl QdB 20.Ke2 NM
21.NxM Bxh4 22.Nf3 Bg3 23.Bxg3 Rxg3 24.Qh6 RfgB 2S.Kf2 RBg6 26.Qf4
QgB 27.Bfl Bxh3 2B.gxh3 Rxf3+ 29.Kxf3 Rxgl 30.h4 KdB 31.b4 Qg4+
32.Qxg4 NxeS+ 33.Kf4 Nxg4 34.Ra2 Rxfl + 3S.Kxg4 bS 36.cxbS c4 37.Rd2
d3 3B.a4 Ke7 39.aS c3 40.Rxd3 c2 41.Rc3 c1Q 42.Rxc1 Rxc1 43.KgS Rc4
44.b6 axb6 4S.axb6 Rxb4 46.Kh6 Rxb6+ 47.Kxh7 Rb4 4B.hS Rxe4 49.h6
Kf6 0-1.
6.exf6 Nxf6
6...Bb4+ 7.Nd2 Nxf6 is a reasonable, if untested suggestion by

Minev.
7.Bd3
In this line, Black has. given up the pawn in return for space and
active bishops.
7 ... Ng4?!
7...Bb4+! must be played immediately, before White gets in B.a3.

B.Nd2 (B.Bd2 0-0 9.eS Ng4 10.Nf3 Ne3 with a good game for Black,
Berasasin-Mettler, Montevideo 1920.) Ng4 Now Black achieves the
desired position. 9.a3 Ne3 1O.Qe2 Bg4 and now:
a) 11.Qf2 O-O!? 12.axb4 Nxb4 13.Ra3 Nec2+ 14.Kfl (14.Bxc2 Nxc2+

IS.Kfl Nxa3 16.bxa3 Qd6 and Black wins-Analysis.) Nxa3 IS.bxa3
Nxd3 and again Black wins; or 13.Bbl Nbc2+.
b) I1.Ngf3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 (12.gxf3 Qh4+ 13.Qf2 Ng2+ 14.Kfl Qxf2+

IS.Kxf2 Nxf4 16.Bc2 d3 17.axb4 dxc2 IB.bS Nb4 with a clear advantage
for Black-Analysis.) 12 ...0-0! 13.g3 (13.axb4 Rxf4! 14.Qe2 Nxb4 with a
clear advantage for Black.) 13 ...NeS 14.Qe2 Rxf4! IS.axb4 (1S.gxf4?
Qh4+) Qf6 16.Rfl Rxfl+ 17.Nxfl Nf3+ IB.Kf2 Nxh2+ 19.Kel Nhxfl
34 How to Play the Albln Countergambit
with a clear advantage for Black, OSipov-Zhuravlev, Latvia 1972.
8.a3 as
9.Be2 Bc5
10.Bxg4 Qh4+
It.g3 Qxg4
12.Qxg4 Bxg4
13.b3
It is hard to justify the gambit now, though Black's superior

development does give him some counterplay.
13... d3
14.Bb2 Bd4
15.Bc3 0-0-0
16.Kd2 Rhe8
17.h3 Bh5
18.e5 Bf7
19.NfJ Bf2
20.g4 a4
21.Rf1! Bb6
All White has to do is activate his queenside pieces and his

advantage will be decisive.
22.f5 axb3
23.e6
White is winning easily now.

23... Bxe6
24.fxe6 Rxe6
25.Kdl d2
26.Nbxd2 Rd3
27.Rc1 Red6
28.Ke2 Re3+
29.Kdl
29... Bc5
29...Red3!? would invite a draw by repetition of position.
30.Bb2 Red3 31.Rc3 Rxc3 32.Bxc3 Bxa3 33.Ne5 Nxe5 34.Bxe5 Rd3
35.Rf3 Rd7 36.Rxb3 Bc5 37.Kc2 Re7 38.Bb2 Be3 39.Rd3 Bg5 40.Rd5 h6
41.Re5 Rf7 42.Ne4 Bd8 43.Rf5 Re7 44.Kd3 c6 45.Rf7 g6 46.Rxe7 Bxe7
47.Bg7 h5 48.gxh5 gxh5 49.Bf6 Kd7 50.Bxe7 Kxe7 51.c5 Ke6 52.Kd4 h4
53.Nf2 Kd7 54.Nd3 Kc7 55.Ne5 b6 56.cxb6+ Kxb6 57.Nf3 Kb5 58.Nxh4
Kb4 59.Nf3 c5+ 60.Kd5 c4 61.h4 c3 62.Nd4 Ka3 63.h5 Kb2 64.h6 c2
65.Nxc2 Kxc2 66.h7 Resigns.
Game '13
Spassky-Lutik ov
Khark ov 1963
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e4 Nc6 5.f4 f6 6.Nf3 fxe5
7.Bd3
The alternatives are rarely encountered these days-with good

reason!
a) 7.fS Bb4+! 8.Kf2 Nf6 9.Bd3 g6 10.a3 gxfS! l1.axb4 fxe4 12.Rel exf3
13.Qxf3 Ng4+ 14.Kg3 Rg8 lS.h3 Ne3+ 16.Kh2 Rxg2+ 17.Khl Bg4!!
18.Bxe3 Bxf3 19.Rxf3 e4 20.Bxe4 Re2 0-1, Szilagyi-Forintos, Budapest
Championship 1963/64.
b) 7.a3 as 8.fS (8.Bd3 exf4 9.Bxf4 Nge7 10.eS NfS=; 8.fxeS Bg4 9.Bf4
Nge7 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Ng6 12.QhS Be7 intending 0-0, =+, Analysis in
Le Gambit Albin.) g6 9.Bd3 Be7 10.0-0 Nf6 11.NgS h6 12.Nf3 gS 13.h4
Ng4 -/+ -analysis in Le Gambit Albin.
7... Bb4+!
8.Nbd2 exf4
9.0-0 Nf6
10.Nb3
10.a3 Bxd2 11.Bxd2-Lamford, who notes that Black still stands

well.
10 ... 0-0
11.cS
A useful move, cutting off the Bb4 and creating a useful post at c4.
But the pawn is weak, and Black can win it, though the operation does
take time.
11... Qe7
12.Qc2 Nd7
13.BbS BxcS
It is obvious that Black stand better here. White must make some
committal moves to get his pawn back.
14.Kh1 Bb6
15.Bxc6 bxc6
16.Nfxd4 Nf6
The Pc6 is not relevant.
17.Bxf4 Qxe4
18.Qxe4 Nxe4
19.Be3
Black's extra pawn is meaningless, but he does have the bishop

pair.
19 ... Re8
Black's bishop pair is more important than his extra pawn. But
against the mighty Boris Spassky, Lutikov could not convert the
advantage into victory.
20.Bg1 cS
21.Nf3 c4
22.Nbd2 Nxd2
23.Nxd2 Bb7
24.Bxb6 axb6
25.Rf2!
25.Nxc4 Re2 with a clear advantage for Black.
25... h5
26.Kg1 Rad8
27.Rc1 Rd3
28.a3 Rde3
29.Nf3 Bxf3
30.gxf3 Rel+
31.Rxel Rxel+
32.Kg2 Rc1 33.Rd2 Kf8 34.Rd7 c3 3S.bxc3 Rxc3 36.h4 hS 37.Kg3 c6

38.Rc7 Rc4 39.Kf2 Kg8 40.Ke3 Kh7 41.Kd3 Rcl 42.Kd4 Kh6 43.KeS Rc4
44.f4 Drawn.
Chapter 5: 4.Nf3 Nc6 (Introduction)
In this chapter we consider deviations from the standard moves

5.: !l. 3 and 5.Nbd2. Let's start by considering 5.Bg5.
Game #14
Schafer-Gessaga
Mendrisio 1989
l.d4 d5 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.BgS
5 . .. f6!
A typical strong pawn sacrifice, introduced by Frank Marshall.
6.exf6 Nxf6
7.a3
Alternatives are not impressive:
a) 7.Nbd2 BfS 8.Qa4 Be7 9.QbS?! Bd7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 I1.Qh5+ g6 12.QdS
Qe7 13.Qe4 Be6 and Black was winning in Anon.-Hartlaub, Hanover
1913.
b) 7.e4 Bb4+ 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.Qb3 as 10.a3 a4! 11.Qc2 Bxd2+ 12.Nxd2 Qe7
13.Bxf6 Qxf6 and Black wins, Jaffe-Marshall, 1904.
7... Be6
8.Qc2 Be7
9.Nbd2 Qd7
10.Rdl 0-0
1l.Nb3 BfS!
12.Qcl d3!
Prying open the sardine can in which the White monarch resides.
13.exd3 Rae8
14.Be2 Bd6
IS.Be3
The retreat is necessary if White wishes to remove his king from

the center.
15... NeS
16xeS RxeS
17.0-0 Ng4
Threatening Nxh2 followed by Rxe3+.
18.Bxg4 Bxg4
19.f3 RhS
20.Rf2
The Black attack is overpowering.
20... Bxh2+
Chapter 5: 4.Nf3 Nc6 (Introduction) 41
21.Kf1 Bg3
22.fxg4 Bxf2
23.Bxf2 Rh1+
24.Ke2 Qxg4+
Resigns.
Now let's consider the more conservative 5.Bf4, which protects

the PeS but can be attacked by a knight at g6.
Game #15
Laurentius-Kostic
Munich Olympiad 1936
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bf4
5 ... Nge7
There are other good moves as well, but this is the most
principled, gaining time by attacking the misplaced Bf4.
S...Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Nge7 This move was criticised by Lamford, but

there is a recent game which shows an improvement for Black.
Radulescu gives (6...Be6 7.e3 dxe3! B.Bxe3 Bg4 9.Be2 Qe7 10.0-0 0-0-0
-/+) 7.a3 Bxd2+! (7 ... Ng6 is less effective, e.g. Lin Ta-Kone,
Thessaloniki Olympiad 19BB: B.Bg3 Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 0-0 10.Rd1 Be6
Il.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Qe7 13.Qc3 RadB 14.e3 Rxd1+ 1S.Kxd1 RdB+
16.Kc1 a6 17.Be2 c6 1B.Rd1 RcB 19.f4 bS 20.e4 NfB 2l.fS Bd7 22.Kh1 QgS
23.Qd2 QdB 24.e6 fxe6 25.fxe6 Qe7 26.exd7 RdB 27.Qc2 Nxd7 2B.cxbS
axbS 29.Qd3 cS 30.Bg4 c4 31.QdS+ KhB 32.Bxd7 b4 33.QeS QfB 34.Qd6
Qf7 3S.Qxb4 h6 36.Bc7 Rxd7 37.Rxd7 Qxd7 3B.QfB+ Kh7 39.QfS+ 1-0.)
8.Qxd2 Bg4! (8...Ng6 9.Bg5!-Lamford.) 9.Rdl Bxf3 10.exf3 Ng6 11.8g3
Qe7 12.f4 f6! 13.Bd3 fxeS 14.Bxg6+ hxg6 1S.fxeS O-O-O! 16.0-0 QcS 17.e6
d3! 18.Qf4 Nd4 Defending against the mate at c7 while delivering the
42 How to Ploy the Albin Countergambit
decisive blow against the White king. The opening of the h-file comes
back to haunt White! 19.Qe3 Ne2+ 0-1, Aban-Bademian, Buenos Aires
1989.
6.N1xl2
6.a3 Ng6 is also seen, and now:
a) 7.BgS Be7 seems to have been taken too lightly by Meinsohn and
Lamford. 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 (8 ... Ngxe7! 9.g3 Ng6 10.Bg2 NgxeS l 1.NxeS NxeS
12.0-0 BfS with an initiative for Black-Analysis.) 9.Nxd4 Nxd4
1O.Qxd4 NxeS lt.Nc3 c6 12Ne4 +=;
b) 7.Bg3 hS 8.h4 as To stop b4. 9.N1xl2 Bg4 and White has problems
developing his Bfl, according to Meinsohn.
6... Ng6
7.Bg3 BcS!
8.a3 as
9.Qc2 Qe7
10.Qe4
Such centralization of the queen is generally innocuous when it

has no clear plan to follow. Such is the case here.
10... a4 !
Clamping down on the queenside, and in particular, on the b3-

square.
It.h4 hS
12.e3 dxe3
13.fxe3 Bb6
White's weak pawn structure renders the extra pawn

meaningless. In fact, the extra pawn just gets in the way of the White
pieces (i.e. Bg3, Nf3).
14.Bd3 RaS !
Chapter 5: 4.Nfl Nc6 (Introduction) 43
1S.0-0 NcxeS
16.b4?
This error brings a quick end to the game, but White's position
was pretty terrible anyway.
16... axb3
17.Nxb3 fS
Resigns.
A fitting punishment for the centralized Queen.
5.e3 is rarely played, but if Black is going to play for a win, he is

going to have to do some work.
Game #16
Vela-Cohn
Guatemala, 1937
1.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.e3
Lamford is highly critical of this move, but he does not improve

on a line which would seem to guarantee a draw for White.
S ... Bb4+
5 ... Bg4 deserves consideration. While this is objectively weaker,

it does not give Black a bad game and is an alternative to the drawing
line of the text. 6.Be2 d3 7.Qxd3 Qxd3 8.Bxd3 Bxf3 9.gxf3 NxeS 10.Be2
0-0-0 11.Nc3 Nf6 (11... Nd3+ 12.Bxd3 Rxd3 13.Ke2! +=) 12.Bd2 Nfd7
1 3.f4 Nc6 is evaluated by Lamford as unclear, citing Collijn-Rosendahl,
Stockholm 1987.
6.Ke2
6.Bd2 dxe3 7.fxe3 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Be2 BfS 11.0-0
44 How to Play the Albln Counfergambit
Ng4 12.Qb3 Qd7 13.h3 hS! 14.Qc3 (14.hxg4 hxg4 IS.Nel Qxd2 16.RxfS
Qxe2 17.Qd3 Qxd3 18.Nxd3 0-0-0 19.Nf2 Rd2 20.Rbl g3 2l.Nh3 Rhd8-
Analysis.) 0-0-0 Black has full compensation for his pawn, and then
some. Correa-Morreira Lima, Curityba 1929.
6... Bg4
7.a3 BcS
8.b4 dxe3
9.bxc5 Nd4+
10.Kxe3 NfS+
Drawn.
Finally, there are a few random moves:
a) S.e4 was seen in a game played as a "leapfrog" simul, with an

anonymous player as White and Em. Lasker,Em & Maroczy as Black,
Hamburg 1900: S .. .f6 6.e6 Bxe6 7.Be2 BcS 8.a3 as 9.b3 Nge7 10.Bb2 Ng6
11.0-0 0-0 12.Qc2 Nf4 13.Nel fS 14.Nd3 fxe4 IS.NxcS d3 16.Bxd3 exd3
17.Qd2 QgS IB.Qxf4 Qxf4 19.Nxe6 Qh6 20.NxfB Rxf8 21.Nc3 Qd2 22.Ra2
Nd4 23.Bal Ne2+ 24.Khl Rxf2 0-l.
b) S.b3 Bg4! 6.Nbd2 Bb4 7.a3 Bc3 8.Ra2 Qe7 9.Bb2 0-0-0 10.Qcl Bxf3
Il.Bxc3 NxeS! 12.Bb4 Qe6 with a much better game for Black in
Neumann-Reiber, Hamburg 1974.
c) S. Qb3 BcS 6.g3 Nge7 7.Bg2, Sapi-Besztercsenyi, Budapest

Championship 1964, should be met by 7 ... 0-0 with a fine game for
Black, according to Lamford.
Chapter 6: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3
This has become a very popular line in recent years, but it is not so
dangerous if Black reacts correctly.
Game #1'
Farago-Mestel
Belgrad e 1982
l .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 Be6!?
I agree with Lamford that this may be the best line, but I
disagree about some of the transpositional byways, which can lead to
dangerous positions for Black if he is not careful.
6.e3
a) 6.Qc2 Qd7 7.Bf4 h6 B.h3 g5 9.Bh2 Nge7 10.Nbd2 Bg7 unclear,

Najdorf-Kostic, Yugoslavia 1950. Black has the usual bind on the
White forecourt, and the weakness at f6 should not be a problem as long
as the bishop stands guard at g7.
b) 6.Nbd2 is the critical variation. Lamford recommends 6... Qd7,

transposing to the 5.g3 Be6 variation, but there is a serious problem in
that line that he did not see so I think that we must transpose to a
suggestion by Hans Kmoch. 6... a5!? 7.Nb3 Bxc4 8.Nbxd4 Bc5 9. Be3 (9.e3
Bxfl 10.Rxfl Qd7! and after castling queenside Black will have strong
pressure on the center, while it is not easy for White to activate his
Bcl.) Qd5 10.Nxc6 Bxe3 11.fxe3 Qxc6 12.Rc1 RdB! with equality,
according to Shakhmatny Listok. The practical tests requested by
Lamford have not been forthcoming.
6... dxe3
7.QxdB+ RxdB
8.Bxe3 Nge7
Black has compensation for the pawn, despite the lack of queens.
He is better developed and White's extra pawn is weak.
9.Nc3
a) 9.BgS h6 10.Bxe7 Bxe7 adds the bishop pair to Black's arsenal.

11.Nbd2 f6! 12.exf6 Bxf6 with full compensation, Tyroler-Balogh, Jassy
1929.
b) 9.Bf4 Ng6 10.Bg3 hS (Simonson-Opocensky, Folkestone Olympiad

1933.) 11.h3 (Suggested by Minev.) 11 ... h4! 12.Bh2 RhS 13.Be2 RfS
Lamford's analysis seems sound. Black recovers his pawn while
keeping the initiative. Sorensen-Krudde, Lyngby 1988 saw instead
10...BcS 11.Nbd2 as 12.0-0-0 BfS 13.Nb3 Ba7 14.Be2 Rd7 lS.Rxd7 Bxd7
16.Bd3 a4 17.Nbd2 0-0 18.Rel Rd8 19.Kc2 Be6 20.Be4 NaS 21.Kc3 c6
22.Kb4 Bb6 23.cS Bc7 24.Kxa4 Ne7 2S.Kb4 NdS+ 26.BxdS RxdS 27.Ne4
Rd3 28.Re3 Rdl 29.Nfd2 Rc1 30.Rc3 Rdl 31.Ka4 bS+ 32.cxb6 Bxb6 33.b4
Nb7 34Nc4 Bd4 3S.Rc2 BdS 36.f3 Bgl 37.Nc3 1-0.
c) 9NgS NxeS 10Nxe6 fxe6 and Black is much better-Analysis.
9... Ng6
9...NfS 10.Be2 Nxe3 11.fxe3 NaS is a worthy alternative,

Opocensky-Pelikan, Prague 1933.
10.NbS Rd7
11. Nbd4 NgxeS
12NxeS NxeS
13.Nxe6 fxe6
White has a slight advantage here, but Black's centralized

knight is powerful.
14.Be2 Nd3+
Chapter 6: 4.Nfl Nc6 5.03 47
15.Bxd3
Now White will have to milk a tiny endgame advantage,

granted by his better pawn structure.
15... Rxd3
16.Ke2 Rd8
17.Rhdl Be7
18.b4 a6
19.Bf4 Bd6
20.Bg5 Be7
21.Rxd8+ Bxd8!
22.Bxd8 Kxd8
23.Rdl+ Ke7
24.Ke3 Rf8
25.4 e5!
and after 26.fxe5 Ke6 White must either return the pawn or allow Rf2,
50 the players agreed to a draw.
Game #18
Thystrup-Keith
Cm:respondence 1989
l.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.a3 Be6 6.Nbd2 f6 7.exf6 Nxf6
How to Play the Albln Countergambit
8.g3 Qd7
9.Bg2 Bh3
10.0-0 0-0-0
10...Bxg2 is a playable alternative. 11.I<xg2 as 12.Nb3 0-0-0 13.e3

d3! 14.Nbd4 Qg4 lS.Nxc6?! A classical error. White exchanges a piece
involved in the defence of the kingside (f3) for a piece which is not
involved in the attack. (1S.h3 Qe4 16.Kgl threatens NgS, and brings
about an unclear position.) bxc6 16.Qa4 Qe4 17.QxaS? Here White had
to retreat with 17.Qdl, though obviously Black has a strong initiative
and White would be hard pressed to find counterplay. 17... Ng4! IB.h3
IB... hS! Because of the pin at f3, this isn't even a sacrifice. 19.Rhl
Bd6 20.hxg4 RdfB! The most efficient move, exploiting the weakness at
f2 as well as f3. 21.QfS+ RxfS 22.gxfS and White resigned in Palme-
Schuster, Stuttgart 194 3. 22 ... Rf8 wins easily since 23.Rh4 is met by
23...QxfS and the f-file is decisive.
It.b4 Bxg2
12.I<xg2 g5
13.NxgS
a) 13Nb3 g4 14Nel Ne5 and now:
al) IS.Nd3 Nxc4 16.BgS Bg7 17.Rc1 h6 18.Bxf6 (18.Rxc4? QdS+ and
Black is clearly better.) 18...Bxf6 and Black wins-Analysis.
a2) IS.cS? d3! 16.Nxd3 Qc6+ 17.Kgl Rxd3! and Black wins, Barbora
Benesh, Correspondence 1985.
b) 13.bS g4 14.bxc6 Qxc6 IS.Qb3 Bg7 gives Black sufficient compensa

tion, according to Kieth. Although White can use the b-file, this is not
so valuable without a light-squared bishop at g2. Meanwhile, the
Black rooks and a flying h-pawn will be useful to Black.
13... hS!
14.h4 NeS
IS.Qb3?
The decisive error.
IS.Ngf3 Nfg4 16.NxeS NxeS 17.Bb2 and now Kieth suggests either
17 ...Bh6 or 17...Be7 with an unclear game. I think tha. the latter move
is much stronger, since the bishop can then take part in the attack on
the White king.
IS... d3!
16.e4
16.exd3 Qc6+ 17.Ndf3 Rxd3 lS.bS Nxf3 19.bxc6 Nxh4+ 20.gxh4
Rxb3 with compensation- Van der Tak.
16... Ng6
17.Ndf3
17.Bb2 Nf4+! lS.gxf4 084+ 19.Kh2 Qxh4+ 20.Nh3 Ng4+ 21.Kg2

RgS-+
17... Bh6
lS.Bb2
More resistant was IB.eS BxgS 19.BxgS Ne4 and now:
a) 20.BxdB Nf4+ 21.gxf4 Qg4+ 22.Kh2 RxdS (22... Qxf3? 23.BgS and
Black doesn't have enough compensation for the rook and pawns.)
23.Qdl Qxf4+ 24.Kg2 Qg4+ 2S.Khl RgB 26.Rgl Qh3+ 27.Nh2 Nxf2+;
b) 20.Qdl NxgS 21.NxgS NxeS 22.Rc1 Ng4 23.bS RheB with

compensation-Keith. The compensation comes in three forms: greater
mobility, control of the e-file, and the fact that the White queenside
pawns are so weak that they can be picked off fairly easily. Keith
gives further: 24.Qa4?! Qd4 25.Nf3 QcS 26.Qb4 Qxb4 27.axb4 Re2
2S.Kgl RfB 29.Nd4 Rexf2 30.Rxf2 Nxf2 31.Nb3 Ne4 32.Rdl Rf3 33.NcS
Rxg3+ 34.Kh2 Rg4 3S.Rxd3 Nd6-+ A good illustration of all of those
compensating factors!
lB ... BxgS
19.NxgS
19.hxgS is no better:
a) 19...Nxe4 20.BxhS Qg4 threatens Nf4+, so White must play 21.BeS

and now 21...Qxf3+ (21...h4!?) 22.Kxf3 Nd2+ 23.Kg2 Nxb3 24.Bc3
(24.Rael d2 and Black is clearly better.) Nxal 2S.Bxal d2 (2S ...h4
26.Bf6 Rd7 27.f4 +/-) 26.Rdl Rd3 27.Bb2 h4 28.gxh4 Nxh4+ 29.Kfl Ng6
30.Ke2 Nf4+ 31.Kfl Kd7 and Black wins.
b) 19...Nf4+ is evaluated as winning for Black by van der Tak, but I

don't see it. 20.gxf4 Qg4+ 21.Kh2 Qxf4+ 22.Kg2 and the Bb2 is going to
chop some wood. All this line gives is a draw. 22... Qg4+ 23.Kh2.
19 ... Nxh4+!
20.Kh2 Ng4+
21.Khl RhgB
Chapter 6: 4.M3 Nc6 5.a3 51
22 .gxh4 RxgS
23.f4 Nf2+
24.Rxf2 Qh3+
2S.Rh2 Qf3+
26.Rg2 Qxg2+
Resigns.
Game '19
Steiner-Foldes
Temesvar 1912
l.d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.a3 Bg4 6.Nbd2 Nge7
This line may be better than its reputation.
7.h3
a) 7.Qb3! is the critical move. 7... Rb8 (7...Qd7?! 8.Qxb7 RbB 9.Qa6
Ng6 10.g3 Rb6 I1.Qa4 NgxeS 12.Bg2 Be7 13.0-0 0-0 14.b4! Qe6 +=
Fuderer-Toth, Yugoslav Championship 1951. Though Lamford's
assessment of +/- seem s a bit much, W.Goldman's claim that Black has
reasonable chances is a bit optimistic. The text, not mentioned in
Lamford, is stronger.) 8.g3 Ng6 9.Bg2 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 It.h3 Be6 12.Qa4
(To stop 12 ... bS!) 12...a6 13.Kh2 NcxeS 14.NxeS NxeS IS.f4 (IS.b3 c6 and
the queen is boxed in.) IS.Nxc4 Forced, to keep some space available for
the light-squared bishop. 16.Nxc4 bS 17.Qxa6 Bxc4 Black can be fully
satisfied with his position, Sterk-Merenyi, Temesvar '1912.
b) 7.Nb3 NfS 8.Bf4 as 9.Qd3 a4! 10.Nbd2 Nfe7 lt.e3 Ng6 - /+ Cohen
Mengarini, New York 1976.
7... Bxf3
8.Nxf3 Ng6
9.Qd3 Be7
9...NgxeS? 10.NxeS NxeS 11.Qc4 Qc7 12.Qxd4
10.Qc4 0-0
White has spent so much time defending his PeS that Black has a
large lead in development. Therefore White should now develop with
It.Bd2.
It.M?! Re8
12.h5 NgxeS
13 .NxeS NxeS
14.Qxb7
14.QxeS?? runs into Bb4+!
14. .. c6
1S.Qb3 RbB
16.Qa2 Bf6
17.Rh3
17.e3 dxe3 18.Bxe3 Nd3+ 19.Bxd3 Rxb2!
17... d3!
18.e3 d2+
19.Bxd2
19 ... Rxb2!!
20.Qxb2 Nd3+
21.Bxd3 Bxb2
22.Rb1 Qxd3
Chapter 6: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 53
23 .Rxb2 Qxa3
24.Rb7 Qa1+
2S.Ke2 Qa6
26.Rb4 Qa2
27.Rh4 cS
28.RbS Rd8
Resigns.
Game #20
Alekseyev-Korzubov
Byelorussian Championship, 1987
l .d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.a3 Bg4
6.Nbd2
a) 6.b4 Qe7 7 .Qa4 0-0-0 8.Bf4 (8.bS? Bxf3 9.bxc6 Bxc6 10.Qxa7 QxeS
and Black is clearly better-ECO.> Bxf3 9.gxf3 Kb8 10Nd2 NxeS 11.Qb3
Nf6 followed by NhS was suggested by Euwe. (11..Ng6?! 12.Bg3 fS 13.f4
Nf6 14.Qd3 Ne4 l S.Bh3 += Petrosian-Porreca, Bclgrade 1954.)
b) 6.g3 Bxf3 7.exf3 NxeS 8.Bg2 Be7 9.0-0 Nf6 (9... cS!?-Mozny.> 10.f4
Nc6 11.Qd3 (11.b4 d3 12.Ra2 Qd7 13.Rd2 Rd8 14Nc3 intending NdS +/-,
Mozny.) as 12.Rd1 Qd7 13Nd2 0-0 14.Nf3 BcS lS.b3 Rfe8 16.Bb2 Rad8
17.Ne1 Re7 18.Nc2 h6 19.Bf3 Qh3 20.Bg2 Qd7 21.Bf3 was agreed drawn
in Vrbata-Mozny, Prague 1987.
c) 6.Qb3!? Rb8 (6 ... Qd7 7.Qxb7! Rb8 8 .Qa6 and Black doesn't have
enough for the pawn, Bogoliubow-Hclling, Berlin 1937.) 7.BgS (7.Nbd2
Nge7 8.g3 Ng6 9.Bg2 Qd7 10.0-0 Be7 11.e3 was played in Ardiansyah
Handoko, Indonesia 1982, and now Black should simply castle with a
roughly level game.) Now in Bellon-Pergericht, Brussels 1987 Black
tried 7...f6 8.exf6 gxf6 9.Bf4 Nge7 1O.Nbd2 Ng6 I1.Bg3 Bh6 12.Rdl 0-0
13.h3 Be6 14.e3 and White held a slight advantage: 14 ...Qe7 15.Be2
Rfd8 16.0-0 dxe3 17.fxe3 Bf7 18.Khl Bxe3 19.Bd3 Nd4 20.Nxd4 Bxd4
21.Rdel Qc5 22.Qc2 Be5 23.Bxe5 fxe5 24.Ne4 Qd4 25.Rxf7 Kxf7 26.Ng5+
Kf6 27.Nxh7+ Kg7 28.Bxg6 Qf4 29.Qe4 Rd4 30.Qxf4 exf4 31.Bf5 Rh8
32.Re7+ Kh6 33.Rxc7 1-0
d) 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.Nbd2 0-0-0 9.Qa4 Kb8 10.0-0-0 f6 l1.exf6
Nxf6 12.h3 Bh5 13.g4 Be8 14.Qb3 Nd7 15 Nel Nc5 and Black had plenty
of compensation in Hodges-Em.Lasker, Cambridge Springs 1904.
e) 6.Bf4 Nge7 reaches a position from L.F1ear-Geenen, Brussels-B,

1987: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.a3 Nc6 5.Bf4 Nge7 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Qb3 Qd7
8.Nbd2 0-0-0 9.0-0-0 Ng6 10.Bg3 Qf5 11.e4 Qe6 12.h3 Bh5 13.Bh2 Ngxe5
14.g4 Nxf3 15.Qxf3 Bg6 16.h4 f6 17.g5 Kb8 Drawn.
6... Nge7
For 6...Qe7!? see Game 21.
7.h3
Onat-Schwab, Haifa 1989 saw instead 7.g3 Ng6 8.Qb3 Be7 9.Qxb7
Bd7 1O.Qb3 0-0 I 1.Bg2 Rb8 12.Qc2 Ngxe5 13.0-0 Bf6 14.Ne4 Bf5 15.Nxe5
Bxe5 16.Qa4 Ne7 17.Nc5 Ng6 18 .Nd3 Bf6 19.Qdl Re8 20.14 Qd7 21.Bf3
Bg4 22.e4 Bxf3 23.Qxf3 Rb3 24.Qdl Rbb8 25.e5 with a significant
advantage for White.
7... Be6
Stisis-Schwab, Haifa 1989 continued 7...Bf5 8.Nb3 Qd7 9.Nbxd4

0-0-0 1O.e3 Ng6 I1.Qa4 Be4 12.Be2 Nxd4 13.Qxd7+ Rxd7 14.Nxd4 Nxe5
15.0-0 g6 16.b4 Bg7 17.Bb2 Bd3 18.Bxd3 Nxd3 19.Bc3 Ne5 20.Ne2 and
White is clearly better.
8.Nb3 Bxc4
9.Nbxd4 Nxd4
1O.Qxd4 Qxd4
11.Nxd4 Ng6
Chapter 6: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.03 55
12.f4 0-0-0
Black continues to develop with tempo, which is necessary if he

is to obtain sufficient compensation for his pawn.
13.e3 BdS
14.Bd2 f6
lSexf6 gxf6
16.Bc3 BcS
17.0-0-0 Nh4
1B.Rh2 RheB
Black's active piece play gives him some compensation, but unless
he can keep it up White will emerge with an extra pawn.
19.Nc2 NfS
20.Bxf6 Nxe3
The picture changes considerabl y with this exchange. White now

has two extra pawns on the kingside, but his pieces are uncoordinated.
21.BxdB
21.Nxe3 Bxe3+ 22.Kb1 Be4+ wins for Black.
21... Nxd1
22.BgS
22.Kxdl Rxd8 23.Kc1 Bgl 24.Rhl Bf2 with compensation, since

White is completely tied down.
22... Ne3
23.Bd3 Nxg2
24.Bxh7
24... Bgl!
25.Rxg2 Bxg2
26.h4
White has two passed pawns on the kingside, but Black has the
more active pieces.
26 . . . Rf8
27.Kd2 Bh3
28.Ne3 Kd7
29.Bd3 Bxe3+
30.Kxe3 Bg4
31.Kd4 BfS
32.Be2 Re8
33.Bc4 Kd6
34.hS 6+
3S.Kc3 Re3+
36.Kd2 Rh 3
37.h6
Black has coordinated his forces and a win is now simply a
matter of technique. 37... Rh2+ 38.Kc3 Rc2+ 39.Kb3 Rc1 40.Bf6 Rh1
41.Bg5 Rh3+ 42.Ka2 Be6 43.Bxe6 Kxe6 44.a4 c4 45.Kb1 Rh2 46.Kc1 Kf5
47.Kb1 b6 48.Kc1 a6 49.Kb1 b5 SO.axbS axb5 51.Kc1 Ke4 52.Kb1 b4 53.b3
and White resigned (presumably at adjournment). After 53...c3 and then
Kd3 the game is over.
Chapter 7: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2
It is not possible to determine the "best" reply to 5.Nbd2, because

much depends on the line Black prefers to play against S.g3, into which
these lines can transpose. Therefore a variety of replies are explored,
more than one of which may be playable.
Game #21
Rutland Manners-Podgomy
Correspondence 1985
l .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Bg4
6.a3
This is the most promising move, which prevents the incursion of

the Black Bf8 and also prepares queenside play with b2-b4.
a) 6.Nb3 was introduced in Berger-Leonhardt,Barmen 1 905: 6 ...Bxf3

7.exf3 Qd7! (Not mentioned by Lamford, who cites an interesting
al ternative in 7 ... Qe7 8.f4 0-0-0 9.Bd3 f6 1 0.0-0 fxe5 I 1 .Be4 Qf6 1 2.Bxc6
Qxc6 13.fxe5 Qxc4 14.Qg4+ KbB with a satisfactory position for Black in
Gurwich-Arnstam, Correspondence 1972/73.) 8.f4 0-0-0 9.Bd3 f6 10.exf6
Re8+ 1 1 .Kfl Nxf6 12.Bd2 Ne4 13.h3 Bd6 14.g3 gS IS.Bxe4 Rxe4 16.c5 gxf4
1 7.cxd6 fxg3 18.Qf3 Ree8 1 9.fxg3 Rhf8 20.Bf4 Re3 21 .Qg2 Qg7 22.Rgl QeS
23.Qf2 QbS+ 24.Kg2 Re2 2S.d7+ Kxd7 26.Rgel Qd5+ 27.Kfl Rxf2+
28.Kxf2 Re8 29.Rxe8 Kxe8 30.Bxc7 QfS+ 3 1 .Bf4 Qc2+ 32.Kf3 Qxb2
33.Rel + Kf7 34.Re2 Qc3+ 35.Kc4 d3 36.Rd2 Qc4 + 37.Ke3 Nb4 38.Nd4
Nc2+ 0-1 .
b) 6.h3 i s a popular alternative. Black should capture immediately

with 6 ... Bxf3 (Dus-Chotmirsky-MarshaII, Hamburg 1910 saw instead
6...Bh5 7.a3 as 8.Qa4 Qd7 9.Qb5 Bg6 1O.g3 Nge7 I 1 .Nb3 a4 1 2.Nc5 Qc8
1 3.Bd2 b6 14.Nxd4 bxc5 1 5.Nxc6 Be4 1 6.Nxe7+ Kxe7 1 7.f3 Ke6 18.fxe4 c6
1 9.Qb6 Ra6 20.h4 Rxb6 21 .Bh3+ KxeS 22.Bxc8 Kxe4 23.0-0 Bd6 24.BfS+
Chapter 7: 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.Nbd2
Kd4 2S.Rac1 Rb3 26.e3+ Rxe3 27.Bxe3+ Kxe3 28.Rcel + Kd4 29.Re4+ 1-0.)
and meet 7.Nxf3 with 7 ... Bh4+ (which cannot be played in the lines
with 6.a3) 8.Bd2 Qe7! and now:
bI) 9.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 1O.Qd2 Qxd2+ 1 l . Kxd2 Nge7 12.e3 O-O-O! 1 3.exd4
Nxd4-Lamford.
b2) 9.a3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 NxeS 1 2.NxeS QxeS 1 3 .e3 cS
with equality, Toth-Balogh, Correspondence 1943/44.
...
b3) 9.g3! 0-0-0 1 0.Bg2 NxeS 1 1 .0-O! (1 1 .NxeS Bxd2+ 1 2 .Qxd2 QxeS
1 3.0-0 Nf6 with a fine game for Black, Zilbershtein-Vasiukov, USSR
Armed Forces Team Championship, Riga 1 964) and now Miralles
Pergericht, Cannes 1 988 continued 1 1 ...Nxf3+ 12.exf3 Bxd2 13.Qxd2 Qf6
14.a4 Ne7 IS.f4 hS 1 6.h4 Kb8 1 7.aS a6 18.b4 Rd6 19.Rfbl d3 20.bS axbS
21 .cxbS Nc8 22.a6 bxa6 23.bxa6+ Rb6 24.Qxd3 Ka7 2S.Rc1 1-0.
6. . . Qe7
For 6.. .Nge7 see Game 20.
7.g3!
But this is hardly a novelty, as suggested by Bouwmeester in New

in Chess YB4.
a) Allies-Em.Lasker, Manchester 1 908 saw instead 7.Qa4 0-0-0 8.b4

NxeS 9.NxeS QxeS 1O.Bb2 Kb8 1 1 .0-0-0 Nf6 1 2. f3 Bd7 13.Qb3 Qe8 14.Qd3
cS I S .bS Bc8 1 6.g3 g6 1 7.Bg2 BfS 1 8.Ne4 Bh6+ 1 9.Kbl Qe6 20.Kal Nd7
21 .Bc1 NeS 22.Qb3 Bxc1 23.Rxc1 Bxe4 24.fxe4 d3 2S.e3 d2 26.Rc3 Rd6
27.Rdl Rhd8 28.B1 Qf6 29.Kbl Qf2 30.Qb2 Qxh2 31.Rc2 Qxg3 32.Be2 f6
33.Rcxd2 Rxd2 0-1 .
b) 7.h3! ? is a playable alternative.
bI) Em.Lasker-Alekhine, St.Petersburg 1914: 7 . . . Bxf3 8.Nxf3 0-0-0

9.Qd3 (9.g3!? +/-, Malich-MiilIcr, East Germany Championship 1 972.)
9 . . . h6 1O.g3 g6 I 1 .Bg2 Bg7 1 2.0-0 NxeS 1 3.NxeS BxeS 14.b4 fS IS.cS Qe6
16.c6 Ne7 1 7.cxb7+ Kb8 18.Bb2 Rd6 19.Racl Rhd8 20.Rc2 f4 21 .gxf4 Bxf4
22.Rd l NfS 23.Bc1 Ne3 24.RcS Qf6 25.Qe4 Nxdl 26.Bxf4 Nc3 27.Bxd6
Qxd6 28.QeS Qb6 29.Qe7 Qd6 30.ReS d3 3 1 .exd3 Qxd3 32.Re3 Qd l +
33.Kh2 NbS 34.Re6 Nxa3 3S.Rf6 1 -0.
b2) 7. . . BhS 8.Qa4! 0-0-0 9.g4 Bg6 1 0.Bg2 +=, Suetin-Mosionzhik, USSR
Team Championship 1 962. 9.b4 !? may be better, e.g. 9 . . . Kb8 (9 . . . NxeS
1 0.NxeS QxeS 1 1 .g4 Bg6 12.Nf3 Qe4 1 3.Qxa7 d3 14.Be3-Ftacnik) 1 0.g4
Bg6 l 1 .Bb2 NxeS 12.NxeS QxeS 13.Nf3 Qe4 14.Bxd4! Goldin-Mengarini,
New York Open 1 99 1 .
7... NxeS
8.NxeS QxeS
9.Bg2
Alternatives do not create any real problems for Black:
a) 9.h3 Bh5 1 0.Bg2 0-0-0 l 1 .Nf3 QaS+ 1 2.Bd2 Qa6 1 3.0-0 Nf6 14.b4
Ne4 IS.cS d3 16.e3 fS 1 7.a4 Qh6 with compensation., Niemala-Spassky,
Riga 1 959: 18.ReI Be7 1 9.aS a6 20.c6 bxc6 2 1 .Qa4 Be8 22.NeS cS 23.Qa2
Qf6 24.Bxe4 fxe4 25.Nc4 QfS 26.bxcS Qxh3 27.Nd6+ Bxd6 28.cxd6 Rxd6
29.Qc4 Bc6 30.Qxa6+ Kd7 31 .Rxc6 Rxc6 32.QbS Qe6 33.Rcl Ra8 34.RcS
Rb8 35.RdS+ Kc8 36.Rd8+ Kxd8 37.Qxb8+ Kd7 38.Qb5 Kc8 39.Kg2 Rd6
40.Qb2 Qf7 41 .Qe5 Qf3+ 42.Kgl Qdl + 43.Kg2 Qxd2 0-1
b) 9.Qa4+ Bd7 1 0.Qb3 Bc6 I 1 .Nf3 QhS 1 2.Bg2 0-0-0 13.NM Bxg2
1 4.Nxg2 Bd6 with equal chances, Cassidy-Thiellemant, Tel A vi v
Olympiad 1 964 .
9... 0-0-0
1 0.Nf3
Chapter 7: 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.Nbc12 61
10... QaS+?!
This is where Black goes wrong.
a) 10 .. . Qe6!? 11.0-0 Qxc4 (l1 ... Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Qxc4 13.Bf4 Qe6 14. Rc1
Rd7 lS.Qa4 a6 16. Rxc7+! Rxc7 17.Bg4 +/- Timet-Siska, Yugoslav
Championship 1947) 12.NeS Qe6 13.Nxg4 Qxg4 14.Qb3 c6 lS.Qxf7 Nf6 is
unclear. -Analysis.
b) 10 ... Qe8! 11.0-0 Ne7 is unclear. This is probably Black's best line.
l1.Bd2 Qb6
12.0-0 Be7
13.NeS Be6
14.h4 Bf6
lS. Bf4?
lS.cS! QbS 16.a4 Qe8 17.Nd3 is evaluated as clearly better for

White by Bouwmeester, but it will take a long time for the pawn storm
to break through, and 17...hS may give Black sufficient counterplay.
15... g'5
16.a4
16.cS QbS 17.c6 Ne7 18.a4 Qb6 19.Qd3 bxc6!-/ + -Bouwmeester.
16 . . . gxf4
1 7.c5 Qxb4!
18.Rb1
1 8 ... Qxb 1 ! !
Black will obtain more than enough compensation for the queen.
1 9.Qxb1 Bxe5
20.Bxb7+
Best.
a) 20.Qxb7+ Kd7 2 1 .Qe4 Bf6 22.Qc6+ Ke7 23.Qxc7+ Rd7-/+ -

Bouwmeester.
b) 20.c6 bxc6 21 .Bxc6 Rd6! and Black wins-Bouwmeester.
20. . . Kd7
21 .gxf4 Bxf4
22.Qe4 Bh6
23.Qxd4+
23.c6+ Ke7 24.Qe5 Nf6 25.Qxc7+ Ke8 26.Qe5 Rg8+ 27.Kh1 Ng4 and
Black wins-Bouwmeester.
23... Ke7
24.Qh4+ f6
Chapter 7: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 63
25.Qg3 Kf7
26.Qxc7+ Ne7
27.Bf3 Rd7
28.Qa5 Rhd8
29.c6 Nxc6!
The knight is taboo!
30.Qh5+
30.Bxc6 Bh3 31 .Bxd7 Rg8+ 32.Khl Bg2+ 33.Kgl Bf3#.
30. .. Kg7
3 1 .Khl
31 .Bxc6 may be playable. 31 . . .Rd4 (31 ...Rd5 32.Bxd5 Rxd5 33.Qf3

Rg5+ 34.Khl Bd5 35.e4 +/-) 32.Bg2 Rg4 33.Rbl Rg6 34.Rb7+ Kh8 35.Rxa7
Rd5 36.Qxg6 hxg6 37.Bxd5 Bxd5 38.a5 and White wins.
31 . . . Ne5
32.Rgl+ Ng6
33.Bg4 Rd5
34.Qh3 Rg5
35.e3 Bd5+
36.f3 f5
37.e4 fxg4
38.Qg2 gxf3
39.Qb2+ Kg8
Resigns.
64 How to Play the Albln Countergambit
5...Bf5!? is a very interesting line, though there really haven't
been enough practical tests. Before launching into our main game, let us
take a little analytical excursion:
Analysis by Meinsohn (from Lamfotd 19S3)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Bf5!?
The text is obscure, holds up well under analysis.
6.Nb3
a) 6.g3 can be met by f6!? (6... Nb4 7.Qa4+ c6 S. NM Qd7! is a

suggestion from Nikolai Minev.) 7.exf6 Nxf6 S.Bg2 (S.Nb3? Be4! 9.Bg2
Qd7 1 0.0-0 0-0-0 and Black has a bind on the forecourt and a free hand
on the kingside. So far, we have followed analysis by Meinsohn. 11.Bg5
d3 1 2.exd3 Bxd3 13.Rel Bb4 14.Bd2 Ne4 15.Bxb4 Nxb4 16.Ne5 QfS! with
tremendous pressure-Analysis.) Qd7 9. 0-0 0-0-0 10.Qb3 intending
l1.NeS, since 1 1 ...Nxe5? allows 12.Qxb7 mate. (1 0.a3 h5 is unclear, but
Black's threats are more serious.) 10 . . . ReS is evaluated as unclear by
Meinsohn. Black has considerable pressure on the e-fiIe.
b) 6.a3 Qd7 is examined in our illustrative game Teschner-Wolf,

Berlin 1939, below.
6. . . f6
6... Bb4+!? 7.Bd2
a ) 7 . . .Qe7 S.Nbxd4 Nxe5 9.Qa4+ Bd7 10.Qc2 (10.Qxb4?? Nd3+-+ Finn-

Palmer, Plymouth 1903; 10.Bxb4 Nd3+ 11.Kd2 Bxa4 12.Bxe7 Nxf2
13. Rg1 Nxe7-/ + -Analysis.) 0-0-0 should provide Black with
sufficient counterplay-Analysis.
b) 7 . . .d3!? S.exd3 (S.Bxb4 Nxb4 9.exd3 Bxd3 10.Bxd3 Nxd3+ l1.Kfl

Nxb2 and Black is clearly better-Analysis.) Bxd3 9. Bxd3 Qxd3
10.Bxb4 Nxb4! with a strong initiative for Black. is probably better
than 10...Qxdl+ 1l .Rxdl Nxb4 12.a3 Nc6 13.0-0 Nge7 14.Rfe1 0-0.
Chapter 7: 4.Nfl Nc6 S.Nbd2 65
c) 7. . . Be7?! is in ECO, but the bishop is rarely well-placed here.
8.Bf4! Bb4+ 9.Nbd2 Nge7 1 0.a3 Bxd2+ 1 1 .Qxd2 Qd7 12.Rd l 0-0-0 13.b4
intending b5-ECO (1987).
7.exf6
a) 7.Nbxd4 Bb4+ ! 8 .Bd2 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 (9.Qa4+ Bd7 10.Qxb4 Nc2+)

Qxd4 1O.Bxb4 Qxb2 1 1 .Bd2 Qxe5 -/+ -Meinsohn.
b} 7.e6 Bxe6 8 .Nbxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 (9.Nxd4 Bb4+ 1 O.Bd2 Bxd2+

1 1 .Qxd2 Bxc4 1 2.Rc1 Bf7 13.Qe3+ Kf8!= -Meinsohn.) Qxd4 1O.Nxd4
Bxc4= -Meinsohn.
7. . . Qxf6
8 . a3
8.Nbxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 1 1 .Bxb4 Qxb2 12.Bd2

0-0-0 with strong threats, Lamford.
8... h6
9.Nfxd4
9.g3 0-0-0 1O.Bg2 g5!-Lamford.
9... 0-0-0
1O.e3
1 0. . . Nxd4
1 1 .exd4 Qg6
12.Qf3
12.Be3 Bc2-Meinsohn.
12... Bc2
13.d5 Re8+ !
1 4.Bc2 Bxb3
15.Qxb3 Qxg2
16.Rfl Qxh2-Meinsohn.
Now let's look at the illustrative game:
Game #22
Teschner-Wolf
Berlin, 1939
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Bf5
6.a3
As recommended by ECO. But they continue with a very strange

l i ne.
6 ... Qd7
7.g3
7.h3 Be7 B .Qa4 f6 9.g4 Be6 10.exf6 gxf6 n .b4 h5 1 2.b5 Ne5 1 3.g5
Nxf3+ 14.Nxf3 c5 is unclear. Sorokin-Solntsev, Burevestnik Champion
ship 1 960.
7... Nge7
B.Nb3 0-0-0
9.Nc5 QeB
1 0.Qa4
10.Bg5 h6 1 1 .Qa4 hxg5 1 2.Qb5 Na5! 1 3.Qxa5 Nc6 14.Qb5 Bxc5

1 5.Qxc5 g4 16.Nh4 Rxh4 1 7.gxh4 Nxe5 1 B.O-O-O b6 with compensation
for the exchange-Analysis. For example: 1 9.Qb5 c6 20.Qa6+ KbB
21 .Bg2 BcB 22.Qa4 Qe6
Chapter 7: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 67
1 0. . . Ng6
1 1 .Qb5 Bxc5
12.Qxc5 Ncxe5
13.Nxe5 Nxe5
14.Kd2 Qe6
1 5.b3 d3
16.e3 Nf3+
17.Kd1 d2
18.Bb2 Qe4
1 9.Ke2 Ng1 + !
Resigns.
Game #23
Lehmann-Smederevac
Beverwijk , 1965
l .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2
5 . . . Be7 doesn't make much sense, but it leads to an interesting

minature. 6.Nb3 (6. g3 makes more sense.) 6 ... Bg4 7.Nbxd4 Bc5 8.Bg5?
Qxg5 9.Nxc6 Bxf3 10.gxf3 bxc6 0-1, Dietz-Kadas, Kecskemet 1 987.
5 . . . Nge7 6.Nb3 Nf5 7.e4 dxe3 8.Qxd8+ Nxd8 9.fxe3 Nc6 10.Bd3
Nfe7 1 1 .Nbd4 Bg4 1 2.h3 Bxf3 13.Nxf3 Ng6 14 .Bxg6 hxg6 15.Ke2 0-0-0
16.b3 Nb4 1 7.Bb2 Nd3 1 8.Bd4 Nc5 1 9.Ng5 Rd7 20.Rhfl Be7 21 .Nxf7 Re8
22.g3 Ne6 23.Bc3 Rf8 24.h4 Bxh4 25.Nd6+ cxd6 26.Rxf8+ Nxf8 27.gxh4
d5 28.Rf1 Ne6 29.cxd5 Rxd5 30.Rg1 g5 31.hxg5 Rd8 32.g6 Rh8 33.Kd3
Rh4 34.Bd4 a6 35.a4 Kd7 36.b4 Kc6 37.Kc4 b5+ 38.axb5+ axb5+ 39.Kd3
Rh6 40.Ra1 Nc7 4 1 .Rc1+ Kd7 42.Rgl Ke6 43 .Bc5 Kd5 44.e4+ Kc6 45.Be3
Rh3 46.Rcl + Kd7 47.Rfl Ne6 4B.Rf7+ Kc6 49.Ke2 Rg3 50.Ra7 Nc7 51 .Bc5
Rxg6 52.Bd6 Ne6 53.Kf2 Rh6 54.Re7 Rg6 55.Kf3 Kb6 56.ReB Kc6 57.RcB+
Kd7 5B.RbB Rh6 59.Kg3 Ng5 6O.Kf4 Ne6+ 61 .Kf3 Ng5+ 62.Ke3 Rh3+
63.Kf4 Ne6+ 64 .Kg4 Rh6 65.Rxb5 Rg6+ 66.Kh4 Rgl 67.Rb7+ Kc6 6B.RbB
Nf4 69.b5+ Kd7 70.RgB Rg2 Drawn
Game #24
Alapin,S-Leonhardt,P
Barmen 1905
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4Nf3 Nc6 5 .Nbd2 Be6
The problem with 5 ... Be6 is that White can transpose into the
most challenging lines for Black by simply playing 6.g3, and 6.a3 Qd7
7.Nb3!? and 7.Qa4!? are also formidable.
6.Nb3 Bxc4 7.Nbxd4 Nxd4 B.Qxd4 Qxd4 9Nxd4 RdB 1O.Nc2 Ne7
1 1 .e3 Bd5 12.Bd2 Ng6 1 3. f4 Be7 14.Rgl f6 1 5.exf6 Bxf6 1 6.Bc3 Bxc3+
1 7.bxc3 0-0 IB.g3 cS 19.0-0-0 Bxa2 20.Bg2 b5 21 .Bc6 a6 22.Bb7 as 23.e4 b4
24.Kb2 Bf7 25.Bc6 Ne7 26.Bd7 RaB 27.f5 RfdB 2B.g4 Nd5 29 .exd5 Rxd7
30.c4 KfB 31 .Rgel a4 32.Re3 ReB 33.RxeB+ KxeB 34.Rel+ Re7 35.Rxe7+
Kxe7 36.Nel Kd6 37.Nd3 BeB 3B.Nf4 Bd7 39.Ne6 a3+ 40.Kbl Ba4
41 .Nxg7 Bdl 42.f6 Bxg4 43.f7 Ke7 44.Ne6 Kxf7 45.Nxc5 Be2 46.d6 Bxc4
47.Kc2 h5 4B.h4 Bd5 49.Kbl b3 0-1
Game #25
Teichmann-Mieses
Berlin (m/3), 1910
l .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 f6 6.exf6 Qxf6
7.g3!
a) 7.Nb3 is an alternative. Black should probably play 7 . . . Bb4+

B .Bd2 Be7! 9.Bf4 Bb4+ 1 0.Nbd2 Be6 wi th a good game for Black,
according to Meinsohn, because 7. . .Bg4 did not work out well in
O.Bemstein-Janowski, Barmen 1 905: B.a3 h6 9.g3 0-0-0 1 0.Bg2 d3 1 1 .0-0
Ne5 1 2.Bf4 Ng6 1 3.Be3 Ne5 1 4. Bf4 Nxf3+ 1 5.exf3 Bh5 1 6.Qel Bf7
1 7.Qa5 Qb6 I B .Qc3 Nf6 1 9.Be3 Qa6 20Nd2 g5 21 .b4 Bg7 22.b5 Qe6
23.Qa5 Nd7 24.Qxa7 Bxa l 25.f4 RdgB 26.Qxb7+ KdB 27.Rxal gxf4
2B.Bxf4 Qb6 29.QaB+ Ke7 30.Rel+ Be6 31 .Qe4 Nc5 32.Qe5 Nd7 33.c5
Nxe5 34.cxb6 Nd7 35.Bd5 Rg6 36.Bxc7 Kf7 37.Rxe6 Rxe6 3B.a4 Ke7
39.Bxe6 Kxe6 40.a5 Kd5 41 .a6 RcB 42.b7 Rxc7 43.a7 Rxb7 44.aBQ Nc5
Chapter 7: 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.Nbd2
45.Kg2 Kd4 46.Nb3+ Nxb3 47.Qxb7 d2 48.Qd7+ Kc3 49.b6 Nd4 50.Qg4
Kd3 51 .b7 Ne2 52.Qf3+ 1-0.
b) 7.a3 can be met by 7 ... BfS 8.Nb3 Qe7 9.Nbxd4 0-0-0 (Lamford) or
simply 7 ... Be6, where according to M ieses ( 1 922) Black has without
doubt a positional advantage for the offered pawn, though the position
is in no way clear and is very difficult to evaluate.
7 ... Bg4
8.Bg2 0-0-0
9.h3 BfS
1 0.0-0 g5
Because White has weakened his position with 9.h3, Black's
attack has some effect.
I I .Qa4 h5
12.Nel Nge7
13.Nd3 g4
14.h4 Bxd3
15.exd3 QfS
1 6.Ne4! Kb8
White has taken control of the center and Black has not been able
to make sufficient headway on the Kingside. Now White turns to the
queenside, where his attack, not d istracted by action elsewhere,
succeeds without much difficulty.
1 7.f4 Nc8
1 8.a3 Rh6
19.b4 Re6
20.Rbl Ree8
21 .Bd2 Nb6
22.Qc2 Ka8
23.a4 Nd7
24.a5 Ncb8
25.Qa4 c6
How to Ploy the Albin Countergambit
26.b5 a6
27.bxc6 Nxc6
2B.Rxb7 Re6
29.Nd6 Rxd6
30.Bxc6 Resigns.
Chapter 8: 4 . Nf3 Nc6 5 .g3, Unusual Replies
The material in this chapter is considered disreputable, but that

does not mean that it cannot be used as a surprise weapon on occassion,
as some of the more recent examples indicate. Nevertheless, theory
does consider both 5 ...Nge7 and 5 .. . f6 to be refuted.
Let's first consider 5 ...Ngc7
Game #26
Smit-Baloch
European Team Correspondence Championship 1975
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxc5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Nge7
6.Bg2
a) Huss-Mozny, Prague Bohemians 1 9BB saw instead 6.Bg5 Bg4!

7.Nbd2 Qd7 B.Bxe7 Bxe7 9.Bg2 0-0-0 1 0.Qb3 a6 1 1 .a3 Bh3 1 2.Bxh3 Qxh3
13.Qd3 RheB 14.Rgl Qe6 15.0-0-0 Nxe5 16.Nxe5 Qxe5 1 7.Nf3 Qf6 1B.Kb1
g6 1 9 .Rd2 cS 20.Rfl Qc6 21 .h4 f5 22.Qc2 BfB 23.Ng5 Qe7 24.f4 h5 25.Nh3
Rd6 26.Ng5 Bg7 27.Rf3 Bf6 2B.Nh3 Rb6 29.Rfd3 Qe4 30.Ng1 Qhl 31 .Rd1
Qg2 0-1 .
b) Also ineffective i s 6.Na3, seen i n Janowsky-Marshall (m/6) 1 90B:

6 . . .Bg4 (Chess Atlas gives 6 ...Ng6 7.Nc2 Ngxe5 B.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Qxd4
Qxd4 1 0.Nxd4 Nxc4 with equal chances.) 7.Nc2 Qd7 B.Bg2 0-0-0 9.h3
Bxf3 10.ex f3 Nxe5 1 1 .0-0 d3 1 2.Ne3 d2 1 3.Bxd2 Qxd2 14 .Qa4 N5c6
15.Radl Qa5 1 6.RxdB+ KxdB 1 7.Qc2 g6 1 B.b4 Qxb4 19.Rb1 Qa3 20.Rxb7
Bg7 21 .Nd5 Qa6 22.Qbl Nxd5 23.cxd5 Nd4 24.f4 Re8 25.Qb4 BfB 26.d6
Qxd6 27.Qa4 Re1 + 2B.Kh2 Re2 29.RbB+ Ke7 30.QeB+ Kf6 31 .QxfB QxfB
32.RxfB Rxf2 33.a4 Ra2 34.g4 Rxa4 35.RhB Ne2 36.Rxh7 Nxf4 37.Bfl Ra1
3B.Bb5 Ra5 39.Bc6 Rc5 40.BeB Rc2+ 4 1 .Kg3 Ke5 42.Rxf7 Rc3+ 43.Kh4
Nxh3 44.Rfl g5+ 45.Kh5 Kd6 46.Ra1 Ke7 47.Bb5 Kf6 4B.Ra6+ c6 49.Kh6
Nf4 50.Kh7 Nd5 51 .KgB Nc7 0-1 .
How to Ploy the A1bin Countergambit
c) 6.Nbd2 is possible, of course. After 6... Ng6! 7.Nb3 (R.Szmetan
Leow, Philadelphia 1 9B9 saw instead 7.a3 Ncxe5 B.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Bg2
Be7 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .b4 as 12.Bb2 Be6 1 3.Nb3 Nxc4 14.Bxd4 axb4 15.axb4
Bxb4 16.Bxb7 RbB 1 7.Bg2 Nd2 I B .Nxd2 Qxd4 1 9.Nf3 Qf6 20.Qd4 cS
21 .Qxf6 gxf6 22.Rfc1 RfdB 23.e3 Rd3 24.Bfl Ra3 25.Rxa3 Bxa3 26.Ral
Bb2 27.Ra4 Rb4 2B.Rxb4 cxb4 29.Bd3 Bc3 30.Bbl Bb3 31 .Nd4 Bxd4
32.exd4 Bd l 33.Kfl h6 34.Kel Bb3 35.Kd2 KfB 36.Ke3 Ke7 37.Kf4 Kd6
3B.Kf5 Kd5 39.Kxf6 Kxd4 40.g4 Bc4 41 .Bc2 Kc3 42.Ba4 Bb3 43.BeB Bd5
44.Ba4 Be4 45.f4 Bc2 46.g5 hxg5 47.Bxc2 Kxc2 4B.f5 b3 49.Kxf7 b2 50.f6
blQ 51 .KgB Kd2 52.f7 Qg6+ 53.KfB g4 54.Ke7 Qg7 55.KeB Qe5+ 56.Kd7
Qf6 57.KeB Qe6+ 5B.KfB Ke3 59.Kg7 Qe7 6O.KgB Kf3 0-1 . 7.Bg2 is an
obvious alternative.) 7...Bb4+ B .Bd2 Qe7 9.Bg2 Ncxe5 1 0.Nxe5 Nxe5
1 l .Bxb4 Qxb4+ 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 1 3.Nxd2 Bd7 14.0-0 0-0-0 Black had a
superior endgame in Warren-Mengarini, New York 1961.
d) 6.e3 Bg4 7.exd4 Bxf3 B.Qxf3 Qxd4 9.Be2 Qxe5 10.Nc3 was played in
Ma tera-Mengarini, United States 1 97B, where Black should have
played 10 ...Nd4! I I .Qd3 Nxe2-Mengarini.
6... Ng6
An interesting alternative is 6. .. Bg4, transposing to 5.g3 Bg4 6.Bg2

Nge7.
7.Bg5!
The only move to bring a secure advantage, but i s is sufficient.

Others:
a) Burn-Schlechter, Barmen 1 905 saw 7.0-0 Ngxe5 B.Nbd2 Be7 9.b3

0-0 10.Bb2 Nxf3+ I 1 .Nxf3 Bf6 1 2.Qd2 Bg4 1 3.Radl Qd7 1 4.Rfel RadB
15.b4 Bxf3 16.exf3 Ne5 17.Bxd4 Nxc4 I B.QcI Bxd4 1 9.Qxc4 Qd6 20.a3
Qb6 21.Qc2 cS 22.Rbl Qc7 23.bxc5 Bxc5 24.f4 b6 25.a4 Rd4 26.Re4 RfdB
27.Rbel Rxe4 2B.Bxe4 g6 29.Kg2 Qd6 30.Re2 Kg7 1 /2.
b) Dunning-Mengarini, Massachusetts 1979 witnessed Black quickly

gain the upper hand after 7.Qb3 Bc7 B.O-O 0-0 9.Nbd2 Ngxe5 1 0.Nxe5
Nxe5 1 l .Nf3 Nxf3+ 12.Bxf3 as: 1 3.Rdl a4 14.Qd3 Bc5 15.Bf4 Qe7 16.h4
h6 1 7.Rac1 ReB I B.h5 Ra6 19.Re1 Rf6 20.a3 Rb6 21 .Qd2 Rb3 22.g4 Qh4
Chapter 8: 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.g3, Unusual Replies 73
23.Bxc7 Bxg4 24.Qf4 d3 25.e3 d2 26.Bxg4 Bxe3! 0-1
c) 7.Bf4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.e3 dxe3 10.Bxe3 Ngxe5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 and
Black was better in Litvinchuk-Mengarini, New York 1979.
7 ... Qd7
Or 7 ... Be7 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Nxd4 Ncxe5 10.0-0 O-O?! 11.Qc2 Rd8
12.Nf3 c6 13.Nbd2 Be6 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15 .b3 and White was dearly
better in Henneberke-Sarik, Holland Championship 1963.
8.0-0 Ngxe5
9.Nbd2 Be7
10.Bxe7 Qxe7
11.Nb3
The weak Pd4 is bound to fall .
11... Nxc4
12.Nfxd4 N6e5
Or 12 ... Nxd4 13 .Qxd4 Nxe5 14.f4-Fernschach.
13.Qc1! Nb6
14.a4 as
lS.Qc3 Nec4
16.Nc6!
and White was d early better in Smit-Baloch, E uropean Team

Correspondence Championship 1975.
A more promising approach is 5 .. .f6, although White can obtain

an advantage by transposing above with 6.exf6 and then Nbd2.
Otherwise, Black is OK, as the following games show:
Game #27
Barbora-Benesch
Correspondence 1981
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.g3 f6 6.exf6 Nxf6 7.Bg2 BfS
(Not mentioned in Lamford, but evidently quite playable.) 8.0-0 Qd7
9.Nbd2 0-0-0 1 0.a3 Bh3 n .b4 Bxg2 12.Kxg2 gS 1 3.Nb3 g4 14.Nel NeS
IS.cS d3 16.Nxd3 Qc6+ 17.Kgl Rxd3 18.exd3 Nf3+ 1 9.Khl QdS 20.NaS
QhS 21 .h4 Nxh4 22.gxh4 Qxh4+ 0-1
Game #28
Fritzvold-J ones
U.S. Open, 1973
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.g3 f6 6.exf6 Nxf6 7.Bg2 BcS
(also not in Lamford) 8.a3 as 9.Qc2 0-0 10.0-0 Bg4 I 1 .Rd l Qe8 1 2.Bf4
Ne4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Qxe4 Nxe2+ IS.Khl Qxe4 16.Bxe4 Nxf4 1 7.f3
Nh3 18.Kg2 Nf2 19.BdS+ Kh8 20.Rd2 Bh3+ 0-1 .
Chapter 9: 4. Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bf5!?
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bf5

Given some difficu lties in the 5 ... Be6 lines, this variation
deserves further examination. Lamford suggested that it was playable,
though there hasn't been enough action to make a final determination.
Game #29
Bellon Lopez-Cirabisi
Genoa 1989
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bf5
6.Bg2
6.a3 is best met by 6...Qd7! Most books only consider the weaker
6... a5, e.g. Hawskworth-Povah, England 1 9B5: 7.Bg2 Nge7 B.O-O Qd7
9.Qa4 NcB 1O.Qb5 Ra6 1 1 .Rdl Nb6 1 2.Nxd4 Bc2 1 3.Rd2 Ba4 14 .Nxc6
Bxb5 15.cxb5 RaB 1 6.Rxd7 Nxd7 1 7.Nd4 Nxe5 IB.Bf4 RdB 19.Bxe5 f6
20.Bxc7 Rxd4 21 .Nc3 1 -0, but as Lamford notes, the text leads to
positions where Black has compensation for his pawn:
a) 7.Bg2 0-0-0 B.O-O Bh3 9.b4 h5 1O.b5 Nce7 l 1 .e6 Almost forced, if
White is to have any active play. The e5-square is worth more than
the weak pawn. 1 1 ... Bxe6 12.Qa4 KbB 13.Ne5 QcB 14.c5 f6 15.b6 a6 16.c6
This looks like an impressive attack for White, but too few pieces are
in the battlefield, and Black has a strong defensive resource. 16 ... Bd5!
17.bxc7+ Qxc7 lB.Bf4 (1B.Nd3 Bxc6 1 9.Bxc6 Qxc6 leaves Black with a
strong kingside initiative and complete control of the center
Analysis.) IB ... fxe5 1 9.cxb7 exf4 20Nd2 Bxg2 21 .Rfc1 Qd6 22.Kxg2 Qd5+
23.Kgl Rh6!-/+ Solokina-Boriscnko, RSFSR Team Championship 1 95B.
Once again the strategy of deploying rooks from the flank is involved
in the middlegame.
b) 7.b4 The most consistent move. Delay only makes it easier for
Black to achieve his objectives. 7 . . . Rd8 (7 . . . 0-0-0 comes into
consideration.) 8.Nbd2 and now:
bl) 8 ... Bxb4? 9.axb4 Nxb4 is refuted by 10.e6! fxe6 (l0 ... Qxe6 I 1 .Qa4+
-Brinckmann.) 1 1 Ne5 Qd6 0 1 ...Nc2+ 1 2.Qxc2 Bxc2 13.Nxd7 Rxd7
14.Rxa7 +/-) 1 2Nd3 cS 13.Rxa7 b5 14.Nxb4 cxb4 15.Bg2 Nf6 16.0-0 and
Black's weak pawns are no match for the piece, Engels-Richter, Bad
Oeynhausen 1939.;
b2) 8 . . . Nge7 was suggested by Lamford, but there is no practical
experience, so what follows is analysis. 9.b5 Nb8 10.Bg2 h6!? 1 1 .0-0 g5
12.Nb3 Ng6 13.Nbxd4 Nxe5 14.Qb3 Bg7 15.Bb2 +=
6... Qd7!
Better than the overambitious al ternatives:
a) 6 ... d3, e.g.
a l ) Huss-Ekstrom, Suhr 1 990: 7.Nh4 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Be6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6
10.Qxd3 Ne7 1 1 .Bg5 h6 1 2.Bxe7 Qxc7 1 3Nf5 Qg5 14.e4 Rd8 15.Qe2 0-0
16.h4 Qg6 1 7.0-0 Bxf5 18.exf5 Qxf5 1 9.Qe4 Qxe4 20Nxe4 Rfe8 21 .a3 Bf8
22.Radl RbB 23.Rbl Rxe5 24.Nc3 Rb3 25.Rfcl Bc5 26.Rc2 Bxa3 27.bxa3
Rxbl+ 28.Nxbl Re1 + 29.Kg2 Rxbl 30.Rc3 Kf8 31 .Kf3 Ke7 32.Ke4 Rb2
33.Rf3 Rd2 34.Ke3 Rdl 35.Rf5 Ral 36.Ra5 Kd6 37.Rxa7 Ra2 38.Ra5 Rc2
39.Rf5 f6 40.Kd3 Ra2 41 .Kd4 Rxa3 42.h5 Ral 43.Rf4 c5+ 44.Ke3 Ke6
45.Re4+ Kf7 46.Rf4 Rel + 47.Kf3 ReS 48.g4 Ke6 49.Kg3 f5 50.Kh4 fxg4
51.Rxg4 Kf6 52.Rg6+ Kf7 53.f3 Re6 54.Rg4 Rd6 55.Kg3 Rd4 56.Rg6 Rd6
57.Rg4 g5 58.Kf2 Rd4 59.Ke3 Rxg4 60.fxg4 Kf6 61.Ke4 Ke6 0-1 .
a2) Chigorin-Albin, Nurnberg 1896: 7.e3 Nh6 8.0-0 Be7 9Nc3 0-0 1O.b3
Qd7 I I .Bb2 Rae8 1 2.Nd5 Bd8 13.Ba3 Be7 14 Nxe7+ Nxe7 15.Nd4 c6
16.Bd6 Bg6 1 7.c5 Kh8 1 8.f4 Rg8 19 .e4 f5 20.e6 Qd8 21 .e5 Nc8 22.Qxd3
Qa5 23.a3 a6 24.b4 Qd8 25.Rfel Ne7 26.Radl Qc8 27.Rd2 Rgf8 28.a4 Rg8
29.b5 axb5 30.axb5 Qa8 31.Bxe7 Rxe7 32.bxc6 bxc6 33.Nxc6 Qc8 34.Nxe7
Qxc5+ 35.Khl Qxe7 36.Qd6 Qa7 37.Rbl Ng4 38.Qb6 Qa3 39.h3 Qxg3
40.hxg4 fxg4 41 .Rbd l Qh4+ 42.Kgl g3 43.Rd8 Be8 44.Qd4 h5 45.Rd3 Rf8
46.e7 Rg8 47.Rxe8 Rxe8 48.Qd7 Qxe7 49.Qxe7 Rxe7 50.Rxg3 Rf7 51 .e6 Ra7
52.Re3 Re7 53. f5 Kh7 54 .Rg3 Ra7 55.Rg6 Rc7 56.Be4 h4 57.Kh2 Kh8
58.Kh3 Ra7 59.Kxh4 Kh7 60.Bc6 Rc7 61 .Bd7 Rc4+ 62.Rg4 1 -0
b) 6...Nb4 7.0-0 d3 8Nel ! dxe2 9.Qxe2 c6 10Nc3 Bd3 I 1 Nxd3 Qxd3
12.Qxd3 Nxd3 13.Rdl +/- Maksimovic-Stamatovic, Bela Crkva 1 986.
7.0-0 Bh3
Chapter 9: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bf5!? 77
8.a3 hS
9.b4 Bxg2
10.Kxg2 0-0-0
n.bS Nce7
12.h4 Ng6
13.Qd3 Nh6
14.e3 Qg4
lS.exd4 NfS
16.BgS Be7
1 7.Qd2
1 7... BxgS
18.NxgS Rxd4
19.Qc1 Ngxh4+
20.Kh1 Nf3
And White resigns because of:
21 .Kg2 NxgS
21 .Nxf3 Qxf3+ 22.Kgl Nxg3 23.fxg3 Qxg3+ 24.Kh1 Rh4#
Chapter 1 0: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 8e6
This is the variation which was promoted by Lamford in his 1 983

book. He kind ly provided me wi th a copy of the manuscript when I was
resident in London in 1 982, and it was on the inspiration of the book
that I took up the Albin in correspondence play. But I d id find a
problematic variation which was not mentioned in the manuscript, and
which didn't find its way into print for some time. When I worked with
Joel Benjamin on the Unorthodox Openings book (Batsford/MacMillan
1987), I showed it to the fonner Uni ted States Champion and he agreed
that it seems to secure a solid advantage for White. So at the moment I
am somewhat wary of 5 ... Be6, though perhaps some remedy will be
found. But there is a silver lining to this dark cloud. Attention has been
so focused on 5 . . . Be6 that other lines, such as those discussed in the
previous chapter, as well as the venerable 5 ... Bg4, analyzed below,
have fallen into the shadows, where they have been lying low,
collecting new ideas.
First we examine deviations from the main line 6.Bg2/Nbd2

complex:
Game #30
S chaedlich-Tain
Correspondence 1984
l .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Be6
6 .b3 ? !
This move i s rarely appropriate i n the Albin. The Pc4 i s much

better defended by a knight at d2.
Chapter 10: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Be6 79
a} 6.Bg2 Qd7 7.Qa4 Bc5 B.Ng5 Nxe5 9 .Qxd7+ Bxd7 1 0.0-0 h6 1 1 .Ne4
Be7 12.Bf4 f6 1 3 .Nbd2 0-0-0 14.Nb3 g5 1 5 .Bxe5 fxe5 16.Nec5 Bxc5
1 7.Nxc5 b6 18.Nxd7 Kxd7 19.c5 bxc5 20.Rfc1 Kd6 21 .b4 RbB 22.Rxc5 Ne7
23.a3 c6 24.Ra5 Nd5 25.Bxd5 cxd5 26.Rc1 Rhc8 27.Ra6+ Kd7 2B.Rxa7+
Ke6 29.Ra6+ Kf5 30.Rd1 Rc2 31 .Kf1 Ra2 32.f3 g4 33.f4 RcB 34.Rxh6 exf4
35.gxf4 Rcc2 36.Rxd4 Rxe2 37.Rxd5+ Kxf4 3B.Rf6+ Ke4 39.Re6+ Kxd5
40.Rxe2 Rxa3 41 .Rg2 Rf3+ 42.Rf2 Rb3 43.Rf4 g3 44.h4 Rb2 45.Rg4 Rh2
46.b5 Kc5 47.Rg5+ Kb6 4B.h5 Ka5 49.Kg1 Kb6 1 /2-1 /2 Rabinovich
Tartakower, Baden Baden 1 925.
b} 6.Qa4 Qd7 7.Bg2 d3! B.O-O dxe2 9.Re1 0-0-0 10.Nc3 (l 0.Be3 Qd1
1 1 .b3-Rajkovic. l1 ...Bb4 12.Nbd2 Bxd2 1 3.Raxd1 exd 1 Q 1 4.Rxd1 Bxe3
15.Rxd8+ Kxd8 16.fxe3 Nge7 is unclear-Analysis.) 1 0 . . . Bc5 (lO ...Bb4
Rajkovic-Muse, Athens 1 9B5. But now White can obtain a clear
advantage: 1 1 .Be3 a6 Rajkovic-Muse, Athens 19B5. But now White can
obtain a clear advantage: 1 2 .Nd4 Nxd4 1 3.Qxb4 Nc6 1 4. Qc5 +/- -
Rajkovic.) 1 1 .Bg5 is evaluated as unclear by Rajkovic.
c} 6.Nbd2 and now:
cl} 6 ... Qd7 see MarshaU-Janowski, Havana 1913 below.
c2} Hough-Tapper, Fort Worth 1 984: 6 ...Bb4 7.Qc2 Nge7 (Ojanen

Zita, Stockholm Olympiad 1 937 saw a less effective deployment:
7... Qd7 B.Bg2 Bf5 9.Qa4 Nge7 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .Nb3 Bc2 1 2.a3 Ba5 1 3 .Nc5
Bxa4 1 4 .Nxd7 Bb3 1 5.Nxf8 KxfB 1 6.Bd2 Bxc4 17.Rfc1 b5 1 B .Bxa5 Nxa5
19.Nxd4 Rd8 20.Rd1 cS 2 1 .Ne6+ fxe6 22.RxdB+ Kf7 23.Rd7 Bxe2 24.b4
Nb3 25.Re1 Bc4 26.Rxa7 cxb4 27.axb4 KfB 2B.Rd1 Nd5 29.Bxd5 exd5 30.e6
d4 31 .e7+ Ke8 32.Re1 Bd5 33.Rd7 1-0) 8.Bg2 Ng6 9.0-0 Qd7 1 0.Nb3 0-0-0
1 1 .Bg5 Be7 12.Bxe7 Bf5 1 3.Qd2 Qxe7 1 4.Na5 Be4 1 5 .Bh3+ KbB 1 6.Nxc6+
Bxc6 1 7.Nxd4 Be4 1 B.Qe3 Qxe5 1 9.Nb5 cS 20.f4 Qe7 2 1 .f5 Bc6 22.Qxe7
Nxe7 23.f6 gxf6 24.Rxf6 Rd2 25.Rxf7 Ng6 26.Nc3 Rxb2 27.Bg2 Bxg2
2B.Kxg2 Ne5 29.Re7 Nxc4 30.Rf1 a6 3 1 .Rff7 Nd6 32.Rxh7 Rxh7 33.Rxh7
Rc2 34.Rd7 Nf5 35.Rd3 b5 36.h4 b4 37.Nd5 Rxe2+ 3B.Kh3 as 39.Rf3 ReS
40.Nb6 Kc7 41 .Nc4 Rd5 42.Nxa5 Kb6 43.Nc4+ Kb5 44.Rxf5 Kxc4 45.RfB
Kc3 46.Kg4 c4 47.h5 Kb2 48.h6 Rd7 49.Kg5 Kxa2 50.Kg6 c3 0-1 .
6... Bb4+
7.Bd2 Bxd2+
a) 7... a5 8 .Bg2 Nge7 9.0-0 Ng6 1 0.a3 BcS n .BgS?! ( 1 1 .Ra2 is probably
slightly better for White.) Qd7 1 2.Ra2 h6 13 .Bc1 Bh3 14 .Rd2 Rd8
1 5.Bb2 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Qg4 with compensation, Alburt-Speelman, London
(Rapid) 1 986
b) 7 . . . Qe7!? 8.Bg2 0-0-0 9.a3 Bxd2+ 10.Nbxd2 Qd7 n .M Nge7 12.Ne4

Ng6 13.NcS Qc7 14.Nd3 BfS with a good game for Black in B.Rogers
Pope, Michigan 1 991 .
8.Nbxd2 Nge7
9.Nc4 Ng6
10.NcS Qe7!
The Pb7 is taboo becau se the knight will have no escape path.
l 1 .Nxe6 fxe6!
The Pe6 is not weak, because the PeS is falling and the f-file will
be used to attack the White king, which will need a lot of time to flee
from the center.
1 2.a3
Otherwise Qb4+ is annoying. For example: 1 2.Bg2 Qb4+ 13.Qd2

Qxd2+! (13 ... 0-0-0 protects the critical b7-square, but does nothing about
the weak Pe6. 1 4.Qxb4 Nxb4 1 5 .0-0 threatens NgS! but less good is
13 ...NgxeS?! 14.Qxb4 Nxf3+ 1 S.Bxf3 Nxb4 1 6.Bxb7 Nc2+ 1 7.Kd2 Nxa1
1 8.Bxa8 +/-) 14.Kxd2 (14.Nxd2 NgxeS=) 0-0 1 5.Bh3 Rae8 and the pin on
the f-file provides an opportunity to recapture the pawn with a good
posi tion-Analysis.
1 2. . . Ngxe5
Chapter 10: 4.Nfl Nc6 5.g3 Be6 81
13NxeS NxeS
14.Qxd4 Qf6
The threat is Nf3+!
IS.Qdl Rd8
16.Qcl 0-0
1 7.f4?
17.f3 was forced.
1 7... Ng4
18.Ra2 Qd4
Black dominates the board:
19.e3 Nxe3
20.Be2 Ng2+
21.Kfl Nxf4
Resigns.
Game '31
Marshall-Janowski
Havana 1913
l .d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.Nbd2 Be6 6.g3 Qd7
7.a3!? Nge7
8.Bg2
a) Inkiov-Peev , Plovdiv 1 984 saw another interesting line: 8.b4 Ng6
9.Bb2 NcxeS (Finegold-Ugoure, Paris Open 1989 was no more encourag
ing for Black: 9 . . . Bc7 1O.Bg2 Bh3 1 1 .Bxh3 Qxh3 1 2.Qc2 0-0 13.Qe4 Rad8
14.bS NcxeS IS.NxeS fS 1 6.Qxb7 NxeS 17.Qxc7 Bf6 IB.O-O-O Rd7 19.QcS
ReB 20.Nf3 Qh6+ 2 1 .Kbl Nxf3 22.exf3 ReS 23.Qc6 Ree7 24.Rhel Qxh2
2S.Rxe7 Rxe7 26.QdS+ KfB 27.Bxd4 1 -0.) 1O.Nxd4 Nxc4 I 1 .Nxc4 Bxc4
12.Qc2 BdS 13.e4 Be6 14.f4 fS l S.Bh3 Ne7 1 6.0-0-0 as 17.bS a4 I B.Nxe6
Qxe6 19.BxfS Qb3 20.Bd7+ Kf7 21 .fS Qxc2+ 22.Kxc2 NcB 23.Be6+ KeB
24.f6 1-0.
b) Spielmann-Kostic, Bled 1 93 1 : B.Qa4 Ng6 9.Bg2 Be7 1 0.0-0 0-0

1 1 .b4 RadB 1 2.Bb2 b6 1 3 .Rac1 as 1 4.bS NcxeS I S.Bxd4 Bf6 1 6.Rfd l Qe7
1 7.cS Nd7 1 B.cxb6 cxb6 19.Ne4 &S 20.BxeS NdxeS 21 .Nd4 fS 22.Nc3 KhB
23.Nc6 Rxd 1 + 24.Rxd l Qf6 2S.Qd4 Bb3 26.Rd2 Qe6 27.BdS BxdS 2B.QxdS
QeB 29.Na4 f4 30.Nxb6 fxg3 3 1 .hxg3 Ng4 32.Qd7 Qe4 33.Qd3 Qe6 34.f3
N4eS 3S.Qd4 Qh3 36.Qf2 Ng4 37.Qg2 Qh6 3B.Rd4 Qe3+ 39.Khl Qh6+
40.Kgl Qe3+ Drawn.
B. . . Ng6
9.Qa4 Be7
1O.Nb3 0-0-0
1 l .BgS
1 1... KbB
12.Bxc7 Qxe7
13.0-0 Bd 7
14.NaS Nxa S
IS.QxaS Bc6
1 6.Rfe1 d3!
A timely advance which should solve all o f Black's problems.
1 7.Qd2 QcS
IB.exd3 Bxf3
19.Bxf3 NxeS
20.Rc3 Rhe8
20 ... Rd4! and Black is better! Instead, Janowski quickly fell into a
bad position.
21 .Rael Qd4
22.Bg2 f6
23.Re4 Qb6
24.d4 Rf8
25.Qc3 Nc6
White has taken over the initiative, in addition to his extra
pawn.
26.dS NeS
27.cS Qa6
28.Bfl h5
29.cxb6 Qb7
3O.bxc7+ Qxc7
31 .Rb4+ Resigns.
Now let us examine the main line:
Game #32
Lindberg-Schiller
Correspondence 1983
l .d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.Nbd2 Be6 6.g3 Qd7 7.Bg2 0-0-0
Alternatives are not sufficient:
a} BuIthaupt-Hilgert, West Gennany 1986: 7 . . . Bh3 8.0-0 Bxg2 9.Kxg2
Nge7 1 0.Qc2 Ng6 1 1 .Qe4 0-0-0 1 2.Nb3 Qe6 1 3.Nbxd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4
QxeS lS.QfS+ Kb8 1 6.Be3 Qc8 17.Rac1 NeS 18.Rfdl g6 1 9.Qf6 Bd6 20.BgS
Nc6 21 .cS Rc8 22.cxd6 Nxd4 23.Rxd4 cxd6 24.Qxd6+ Ka8 2S.Rxc8+ Qxc8
26.Qd8 Qxd8 27.Rxd8+ Rxd8 28.Bxd8 1 -0.
b} Lange-Smederevac, Beverwijk 1 963: 7. . .Nge7 8.0-0 Ng6 9.a3 Be7
1 0.b4 Rd8 1 1 .Bb2 0-0 12.bS NcxcS 13.Nxd4 Nxc4 1 4.Nxc4 Bxc4 l S.Qa4
BdS 1 6.e4 Be6 1 7.Rad l Qc8 18.Qxa7 Bc4 19.Rfel Bf6 20.Qa4 NeS 21 .NfS
Qe6 22.Rxd8 Rxd8 23.Nd4 Qb6 24 .Bfl Rxd4 2S.Bxd4 Qxd4 26.Rdl Nf3+
27.Khl Nd2 28.Rxd2 Qxd 2 29.Qa8+ Bd8 30.Bxc4 Qel + 31 .Kg2 Qxe4+
32.Kgl Qe7 33.Qxb7 Qxa3 34.Qc8 Qe7 3S.BdS hS 36.Bc6 g6 37.h4 Kg7
38.Kg2 Qf6 39.Qd7 Kg8 40.Qe8+ Kh7 41 .BdS Kg7 42.Bxf7 Be7 43.Bxg6
BcS 44. f3 Kh6 4S.BxhS Bd6 46.Qf7 Qb2+ 47.Kh3 Qbl 48.Kg4 Qd3
49.Qe6+ Kg7 SO.Qe4 Qb3 Sl .Be8 Kf8 S2.hS Be7 S3.Bc6 Qg8+ 54.Kh3 QgS
SS.Qg6 Qxg6 S6.hxg6 Kg7 S7.Be4 Bd6 S8.Kg4 Kf6 S9.Bd3 BcS 6O.f4 Bd6
61 .Kf3 Kg7 62.g4 Be7 63.gS 1 -0.
8.0-0
My idea of 8.a3! has not received a practical test, but I think that
it gains an important tempo on the queenside attack, and does not allow
the flexibility of plans that an earlier a2-a3 provides. Joel Benjamin
agrees. So play this line as Black at your own risk!
8... hS!
This i s the move which makes the variation playable.
Martin-Wong, Sydney 1990 is a recent example of 8 ... Nge7?! :
9.NgS NxeS 10.Nxe6 Qxe6 1 1 .Qa4 Kb8 12.QbS c6 1 3.QaS Re8 1 4.Nb3
Nxc4 lS.Qa4 Nb6 1 6.Qxd4 Ng6 1 7.Be3 Qc4 1 8.Qd l Be7 1 9 .Rcl Qa4
20.Qc2 Bf6 21 .QcS Ka8 22.Rfd l Rd8 23.Nd4 NdS 24.Nxc6 bxc6 2S.Qxc6+
Qxc6 26.Rxc6 Nge7 27.RcS Bxb2 28.BxdS+ NxdS 29.RcxdS RxdS 30.RxdS
Rb8 31 .Rd7 Rb7 32.Rd8+ RbB 33.Rxb8+ Kxb8 34.Kg2 a6 3S.Kf3 Kc7
36.Ke4 g6 37.Bd4 Ba3 38.KeS Be7 39.KdS Kd7 40.BcS Bf6 41 .e4 hS 42.f4
Bc3 43.h3 Bel 44.g4 hxg4 4S.hxg4 Bc3 46.a4 Bf6 47.Bd6 Bh4 48.BeS Be7
49.Bd4 Bd6 SO.Be3 Be7 S1 .Bd2 Bd6 S2.Bel Bb4 S3.gS Bf8 54.Bb2 Bd6
SS.BeS Ba3 S6.fS gxfS S7.exfS Be7 S8.g6 fxg6 S9.fxg6 Bf8 60.aS Bh6
61.KcS Ke6 62.g7 Kf7 63.Kb6 Bd2 64.Kxa6 BxaS 6S.KxaS Kg8 66.KbS Kf7
67.KcS Kg8 68.Kd6 Kf7 69.Kd7 1-0.
9 .h4
There are plenty of alternatives, but none show any real promise
for White:
a) 9.a3 h4 1O.b4 Bh3 I 1 .Bb2 White's counterplay is much too slow.
11 ... Bxg2 1 2.Kxg2 hxg3 1 3.fxg3 Qh3+ 14.Kf2 Nh6 IS.Rhl Ng4+ 1 6.Kel
Qg2 1 7.Rfl Ne3 18.Qa4 Nxfl 1 9.Nxfl d3 0-1, Harris-Wilcox, Guernsey
1 989.
b) 9.Qa4 and now:
bl) 9 . . . KbB!? 10.b4 NxeS! I 1 .Qxd7 Nxf3+ 1 2.Bxf3 Bxd7= O'Kelly,R.
Lamford, London 1 981.
b2) Geisler-Finegold, Ostende 1989 saw Black ignore White's attack:
9 ...M 1O.b4 (Sher-Gusev, Belgorod 1990 provides another example
which turned out well for White: 1 0NxM Bh3 1 1 .Bxc6 bxc6 12.Qxa7
Qg4 13Nhf3 d3 14.e6 Qxe6 IS.exd3 Qf6 1 6.Rel RhS 1 7.d4 Bb4 18.Qa8+
Kd7 19.Qa4 Bxd2 20.Nxd2 Ne7 21 .Qa3 Be6 22Ne4 Qg6 23.Bf4 Qg4 24.f3
Qh3 2S.g4 Ng6 26.Bg3 NM 27.Re2 1-0.) 10 ...hxg3 l 1 .fxg3 d3 1 2.e3 Bh3
13.bS NbB 1 4.Qxa7 Bxg2 IS.Kxg2 Qh3+ 16.Kgl Nh6 1 7.cS RdS 18.Ba3
Ng4 19.c6 RxbS 20.Rabl Nxh2 21 .cxb7+ Kd7 22.e6+ Qxe6 23.RxbS cS
24.Qxb8 Bd6 2S.Qxh8 Qxe3+ 26.Kg2 Nxfl 27.Kxfl Qe2+ 28.Kgl Qdl +
29.Kg2 Qe2+ 30.Kgl Qd l + 31 .Kg2 Qe2+ 32.Kh3 Qf2 33.b8N+ Ke6
34.Qe8+ Be7 3S.Rb6+ 1-0.
c) 9.NgS h4 (9 ...NxeS is unclear-Andruet.) 1 0.Nxe6 Qxe6 I 1 .Qa4
hxg3 12 .hxg3 QxeS 13.Nb3 Qxe2! 1 4.Bxc6 QhS IS.Bxb7+ Kxb7 16.QbS+=
Andruet-Lamford, European Team Championship 1982.
d) 9.Qb3 M 1O.NxM Bh3 1 1 .Ndf3 Be7-Lamford. 1 2.Bf4 BxM
13.NxM Bxg2 14.Kxg2 Nge7 gives Black a good attack-Analysis.
e) 9.Rel M 1O.a3 hxg3 l 1 .hxg3 Bh3 is unclear-ECO (1977).
f) 9.b4 Bxb4 1 0.Rbl is an attempt to sieze the ini tiative, but the
position remains unbalanced. 1 0...h4 1 1 .Qa4 ( 1 1 .Nxh4 Be7 1 2.Qb3 b6
1 3 .Ndf3 Bh3 1 4 . QbS Bxh4 lS .Nxh4 Bxg2 1 6. Kxg2 is unclear.
Chandler,C.-Lamford, London 1982.) hxg3 12.Rxb4 Nxb4 1 3.Qxb4 Bh3
14.e6 Qxe6 IS.fxg3 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Nf6 1 7.Rel Ng4 18.Nfl Qe4 1 9.QcS b6
20.QbS f6 21 .cS RhS and Black had sufficient counterplay in
How to Ploy the Albin Countergambit
Vladimirov-Volfson, USSR 1 969.
9 ... Nh6
1 0.NgS
10.a3 Ng4 is an alternative:
a) 1 1 .Qb3?! Be7 1 2 .Rdl NaS 1 3.Qc2 Ne3! and Black was better in
Perkins-Lamford, England 1 981 .
b) 1 1 .b4 Ne3 12.fxe3 dxe3 1 3.Qa4 exd2 14 .Bxd2 (14 .Nxd2 Qd4+) NxeS
lS.Qxd7+ Nxd7 and Black wins-Analysis.
c) 1 1 .Qa4 KbB 12.b4 NcxeS (12 ...NgxeS 13.bS Nxf3+ 14 .Nxf3 Ne7 +=
Carlsson-Schiller, Correspondence 1 983) 1 3.Qxd7 Rxd7 14.Bb2 Nxc4
1S.Nxc4 Bxc4 16.Nxd4 is unclear. Boness-Schiller, Correspondence 1983.
One other option is 1 0.Qa4 Kb8 1 1 .b3 Bh3 12.Rdl Bxg2 1 3.Kxg2
Qg4= Perkins-Lamford, London 1981.
1 0 ... Bg4!
10 ...NxeS? 1 1 .Nxe6 fxe6 1 2.Qb3 and White was winning in Law
Lamford, London 1981 .
1 1 .Nd f3 f6 !
12.exf6 gxf6
1 3.Nc4 Qe6
This line was suggested by Lamford and Andrew Law, who hold
that Black has enough compensation for the pawn. The present game
confirms this evaluation.
Chapter 1 0: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Be6 87
14.Qc2
14 .Nxf6 Qxf6 IS.BgS Qd6 1 6.Bxd8 Qxd8 1 7.NgS Bd7?! 1 8.Bxc6!

Bxc6 1 9.Ne6 Qd7 20.Qxd4 ! turns the tables but 17 ... d3 18 .Qxd3 Qxd3
1 9.exd3 BcS 20.Nc4 Bd4 gives Black compensation.
14... Nb4
I S .Qa4 a6
I S . . .Qxc4 might be met by 1 6.NgS!? o r 1 6.Qxa7!?
16.c5 Nc6
1 7.Nfd2 Bxe2
18.Rel d3
1 9.Nc3 Bxc5
20.Nb3 Bb6
21 .Bf1 ?
21 .Bxc6!? would have been better.
21 . . . Nd4!
22.Nxd4 Rxd4
23.b4 Rxh4 !
24.Nxe2 Bxf2 + ! !
2S.Kxf2 Ng4+
26.Kgl Qb6+
27.Nd4 Qxd4+
28.Be3 Nxe3
29.gxh4 Rg8+
30.Kf2 Ndl +
Resigns.
Chapter 1 1 : 5 . . . 894
Game #33
Bimboim-Veinger
Munich Zonal 1987
l .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4 6.Bg2 Qd7
a) 6 .. .Nge7 is also possible, but there isn't much experience to draw
upon. An example is Thorsteins-Hvenekilde , Copenhagen 1 9B9: 7.0-0
Ng6 B.Nbd2 Be7 9.Nb3 Bxf3 1O.exf3 Ngxe5 1 1 .f4 Nxc4 1 2.Qc2 Nb6
1 3.Bxc6+ bxc6 14.Qxc6+ KfB 1 5.Rd1 Bf6 1 6.Nxd4 Qd6 1 7.Be3 Qxc6
IB.Nxc6 Bxb2 19.Bc5+ KeB 20.Rab1 Na4 21 .Rd5 Bc3 22.Rbdl f5 23.Ba3
Nb6 24.Rxf5 Bf6 25.Rc5 h5 26.Re1 + Kd7 27.Ne5+ KcB 2B.Recl Kb7
29.Rxc7+ Ka6 30.Be7 RacB 31 .RxcB RxcB 32.RxcB NxcB 33.Bxf6 gxf6
34.Nd7 f5 35.Nf6 Kb5 36.Nxh5 Kb4 37.Ng7 Nd6 3B.h4 Ka3 39.h5 Kxa2
40.h6 as 41 .Nxf5 Nf7 42.h7 1 -0.
b) 6 . . . Bb4+ seems irrelevant after 7.Nbd2: Steiner-Dalmy, Temesvar
1912 continued 7. . . Qd7 B.O-O Nge7 9'Nb3 Bxf3 1O.exf3 Nxe5 1 1 .a3 Bd6
12.c5 +/- 0-0-0 1 3.cxd6 Qxd6 14.f4 N5c6 15.Bd2 h5 16.Qf3 h4 1 7.g4 f5
IB.g5 Ng6 1 9.Rac1 h3 20.Bxh3 Nh4 21 .Qd3 Qd5 22.f3 g6 23.Rc5 Qf7
24.Rxc6 bxc6 25.Nc5 Rd5 26.Qa6+ KdB 27.Qxc6 Ke7 2B.Rel+ KfB 29.Ne6+
KgB 30.Qxd5 1-0.
7.0-0
7. . . 0-0-0
a ) 7. . . Nge7 is too slow, as demonstrated in Calinescu-Biro, Deva
19BB: B.b4 Nxb4 9.e6 Bxe6 1O.Ne5 QcB 1 1 .Qa4+ Nbc6 1 2.Nxc6 Qd7 (An
attempt to improve on 1 2 . . . Nxc6, which was played in Tolush-Horn,
Hastings 1 954: 1 3.Bxc6+ bxc6 14.Qxc6+ Bd7 1 5.Qe4+ Be7 16.Ba3 0-0
1 7.Qxe7 ReB 1 B.Qh4 Rxe2 1 9.Qxd4 Bh3 20.Nc3 Bxfl 21 .Rxfl Re6 22.Nd5
KhB 23.Bb2 f6 24 .Qf4 RbB 25.Bc3 c6 26.Ne3 QeB 27.Nf5 RdB 2B.Rbl Re4
29.Nxg7 1 -0.) 1 3.Ba3 Nxc6 14. BxfB KxfB 1 5.Nd2 Bh3 1 6.Bxh3 Qxh3
17.Rfhl QcB IB.QbS RbB 1 9Nf3 hS 20Nxd4 Nxd4 21 .QcS+ KgB 22.Qxd4
h4 23.Rb3 cS 24.QcS b6 2S.Rdl QcB 26.Re3 QxeS 27.RxeS hxg3 2B.hxg3
Rh6 29.Rd7 a6 30.Ra7 as 31 .RfS RfB 32.Rb7 Rd6 33.RdS Re6 34.e3 Re4
3S.Rxb6 RcB 36.Ra6 Rxc4 37.RxaS Rc2 3B.Ra7 c4 39.Rdd7 Rb2 40.Rxf7
RbbB 41 .Rxg7+ KfB 42.Rgb7 1-0.
b) 7. . . Bh3?! B.Bxh3 Qxh3 9.e3! dxe3 1 O.Bxe3 f6 l 1 .exf6 Nxf6 12.Na3
+/=, Kelly-Schiller, USAT 1 991 .
B.Qb3
Generally agreed to be the strongest move. Lamford (1 9B3) is
puzzling here, choosing an inferior continuation while citing better
alternatives. I think that this was due to his faith in the superiority of
S ... Be6.
a) B.Nbd2 is Korchnoi's choice:
a1) Korchnoi-Mosionzhik, Moscow, 1 961 saw B . . . Nge7 9.Qa4 Ng6
1O.b4 KbB 1 1 .bS NcxeS 1 2 .Bb2 Nxf3+ 13.exf3 BfS 14.Nb3 Bc2 IS.QaS d3
16Nd4 BcS 1 7.Nxc2 dxc2 IB.Rac1 f6 19.f4 hS 20.Qc3 Ne7 2 1 .Ba3 Bxa3
22.Qxa3 Qd2 23.Qxe7 Qxc1 24.Rxcl Rdl+ 2S.Qel RhdB 26.Bf3 1-0.
a2) Black failed to improve in Korchnoi-Mosionzhik, Leningrad
(Spartakiad) 1 969 w i th 8 . . . Bh3 9.Nb3 Bxgt W. Kxgt Qe6 nQd] Nxe
12.Nbxd4 Qf6 1 3.Qe4 Nxf3 14.Nxf3 Qc7 1S.Qxe7 Bxe7 16NeS RfB 1 7.Be3
Bf6 IB.BcS Be7 1 9.Bd4 Nh6 20.Nd3 RhgB 2 1 .Radl NfS 22.Bc3 RdB
23.Nf4 c6 24.NhS Nd6 2S.Nxg7 Nxc4 26.NfS Rd7 2 7.Rxd7 Kxd7 2B.Rdl +
KeB 29.Rd4 1 -0
b) B.a3 Bh3 9.b4 Bxg2 1 0.Kxg2 Qe6 1 1 .Qd3 hS 1 2.NgS Qd7 13.f4 Nh6
14.Nd2 f6 IS.exf6 gxf6 1 6.Nf3 NfS 1 7.Ne4 Be7 with counterplay,
Ogala-Byggmastar, Correspondence 1 990.
B... hS ! ?
a ) B ... QfS is an interesting alternative. 9.Rd 1 Nge7 1 0.NgS Qg6

I 1 .Nf3 QfS is an invitation to a draw. Declining can be dangerous:
1 2.Na3?! Ng6 13.Nc2 Bxf3 14.Bxf3 NgxeS I S.BdS BcS 16.Nel d3! 1 7.e3
hS IB.Nxd3 RxdS! 1 9.cxdS Qh3 20.f4 Nd4 with a strong attack in
Bogovac-Dzieniszewski, Jeleni Gora 1 977. I regret that I do not have
the remaining moves in this exci ting encounter.
b) B... Bh3? 9.e6! Bxe6 1O.NeS Qd6 1 1 .Nxc6 bxc6 12.Qa4 QcS 13.Na3
Ne7 14.Bd2 Bg4 I S.b4 QfS 16.Qxa7 Kd7 1 7.f3 1-0, Ostendstad-Hartung
Nielsen, Copenhagen 1986.
Chapter 1 1 : 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4 91
c) S . . . Nge7 has been tried : Tcmirbaev-Reprintsev, USSR 1 9S5 saw
further 9.Rdl b6 1 0.QbS Kb8 I1 .BgS a6 1 2.Qa4 h6 13.Bxe7 Bxe7 14Nc3
Bxf3 IS.exf3 NxeS 16.Qxa6 QcS 1 7.QxcS+ KxcS IS.NdS BcS 1 9.f4 Nxc4
20.b4 Bd6 21 .Rxd4 bS 22.Bfl Bxb4 23.Rxc4 bxc4 24.Nxb4 Kb7 2S.Bxc4 Rd4
26.Rc1 RhdS 27.Rc3 Kb6 2S.Nc2 Rd1 + 29.Kg2 f6 30.Ne3 Rld2 31 .Be6
RSd3 32.Rb3+ KcS 33.M g6 34.Bf7 Rd7 3S.Rc3+ Kb4 36.Rc4+ KaS 37.Be8
R7d4 38.Rxc7 Kb6 39.Rc6+ Kb7 40.Rxf6 1 -0.
d ) 8 . . . d3!? 9.Rd1 Bxf3 1 0.Bxf3 dxe2 1 1 .Re1 Qd l ! 12.Rxdl Rxd l +
13'Qxd 1 exdl + 14.Bxdl NxeS +/=, Schallerhroeder, Correspondence
1 990.
9 .h4 ? !
a) 9.Rd 1 ! i s critical.
9 ...b6 (I don't understand this move. Surely Black is not aiming at

NaS, and wasting a move to blunt the queenside attack seems
premature. Why not just 9 ... M!?) 10.Bf4 h4 1 1 .Nc3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 gS
1 3.QbS Nb8 14.Qxd7+ Rxd7 IS.e6! fxe6 1 6.BeS Bg7 17.Bxg7 Rxg7 18.Rxd4
hxg3 19.hxg3 and with the bishop guarding hI, White is clearly better,
Silakov-Haunin, Leningrad 1 964.
b) 9.Nbd2 M 10.Nxh4 Bxc2 leaves the Black bishop control critical
squares near the White king. I I .Re1 d3 1 2.Nhf3 QfS This effectively
paralyzes the White forces, which must concentrate on the defence of
f3. 13.QbS Hoping to loosen things up with fS-f6. 13 ...a6 1 4.Qa4 NxeS!
l S.NxeS? Qxf2+!! 0-1, Gil-Leontxo Garcia, Spain 1983.
c) 9.b4 is also interesting, and led to a quick kill in De Boer-Crawley,
Ramsgate 1 984: 9 . . . Bxb4 10.Qa4 Bh3 1 1 .e6 Bxe6 12.Rb1 Qd6 13.Ne4 Qe7
14.NeS NxeS l S.Rxb4 cS 1 6.Rbl a6 1 7.NxcS QxcS 18.Ba3 Qxc4 1 9.Bxb7+
Kc7 20.Rfc1 1-0.
9... f6 !
1 0.exf6 gxf6
1 1 .Rd1 Bh3
1 2.Bh1 Bc5
13.Nc3 Qg4
14.Na4 Bd6
15.Kh2 d3!
Cutting off the queen from the kingside, and freeing up the d4
square and the a7-g1 diagonal.
16.Rxd3 Nge7
1 7.c5 Bxg3+!
18.fxg3 Bft
Now we see an additional effect of the advance of the d-pawn:
the first rank is left unguarded, aHowing this unusual move to be
played .
1 9.Bf4 Bxe2
20.Rxd8+ Rxd8
Black is down a piece, but the Na4 is not involved in the game.
21 .Bg2
21 .Re1 Rd3 22.Qc4 Rxf3 23.Qxe2 Rxf4 24.Qxg4+ Rxg4 25.Nc3 =
21 ... Kb8!
White threatened Bh3.
22.Re1 Rd3
23.Qc4 Rxf3
24.Bxf3
24.Qxe2 Rxf4 25.Qxg4 Rxg4 26.Bxc6 bxc6 27.Nc3 Nd5=
Chapter 1 1 : 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.g3 Bg4 93
24 ... Bxf3
25.Qe6 Qg6
26.Qc4 BdS
27.Qc3 Bxa2
28.b3 Qf7
Black is now clearly better, thanks to the weakness of the White
pawns on the queenside.
29.Qd2 Bxb3
3O.Qd7 NeS !
31 .QdB+ NcB
32.Ra1 Qc4
White has no attack, and no defence!
33.BxeS Qe2+
34.Kgl QxeS
3S.Rfl Qxg3+
36.Kh1 Qxh4+
37.Kg2 Bxa4
3B.Rxf6
and White resigned without waiting for 3B ... Bc6+ 39.Rxc6 (39.Kgl Qg3+
40.Kfl BbS+) 39 ...QxdB 0-1
Game #34
Browne-Mestel
Las Palmas Interzonal 1982
l .d4 dS 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.Nbd2 Bg4 6.g3 Qd7 7.Bg2 O-
8.0-0 hS
9.h4
a) 9.Qb3 M! 10.NxM Bxe2 l 1 .Rcl d3 12.Nhf3 QfS 13.M gS and Black
has an overpowering attack in Formanek-Oshana, USA 1970.
b) 9.Rel M! 10.a3 hxg3 1 1 .hxg3 QfS (1 1 ...d3 12.b4 QfS 13.e4 QhS
14.Bb2 is unclear. Kan-Simagin, USSR Championship 1 952.) 1 2.Nfl f6
1 3.exf6 Nxf6 14.b4 Ne4 and Black is clearly better. with a strong
attack, ECO (1 987)
c) 9.b4! is a powerful pawn sacrifice, and is White's best line.
9 . . . Bxb4 10.Qa4 M 1 1 .Rbl hxg3 1 2.Rxb4 Nxb4 13.Qxb4 Bh3 14.fxg3
(14.e6?! transposes to Vladimirov-Wolfson, discussed in Chapter 10.)
Bxg2 lS.Kxg2 Qh3+ OS...Rh6 comes into consideration, for example
16.Ne4 Rb6 1 7.QaS Kb8 1 8.NfgS Nh6 intending d4-d3-Analysis.)
1 6.Kgl Nh6 17.Ne4 +/- according to ECO (1 987)
9... Nge7
10.Qa4 Ng6
1 1 .Nb3 Kb8
1 2.NaS NxaS
13.Qxa5
White's attack involves only the queen and the long-distance
cleric at g2, but Black does not seem to have much counterplay on the
kingside. Therefore Black must retrain his sights on the PeS in order to
restore material equality.
13... QfS
14.Rel f6
lS.Qb5 cb
Chapter 1 1 : 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.g3 Bg4 95
15 ...Nxc5 1 6.Nxd4! or 15 .. .fxc5 16.Nxd4!
16.Qb3
1 6 ... Bc5
1 6... Bxf3 1 7.Bxf3 Nxe5 seems more logical. 1 8.Bg2 d3 with
counterplay-Analysis.
1 7.exf6 gxf6
1B.Qd3 Qxd3
19.exd3 Bb4
20.Bd2 Bxf3
21 .Bxb4 Nxh4 !
22.Bh3 Ng6
23.Bf5 RhgB
Black has a passive position and structural weakness, while
White enjoys the advantage of the bishop pair. Therefore Black
should have gone all out for the attack with 23 ... Rdg8.
24.Re6 h4
25.Rxf6 Ne5
26.Rel Ng4
27.Bxg4 Bxg4
2B.f3 Bh5
29.g4 Bg6
The bishops of opposite color are less important than White's
control of the e-file and general maneuverability.
3O.Rd1 Kc7
31 .Kf2 b6
32.Bd2 Rdf8
32 ... Bxd3?? 33.Bf4+! wins.
33.Bg5 h3
34.Kg3 cS
35. Kxh3
This should be an easy win.
35. . . Re8
36.Rd2 Kb7
37.Bf4 Ka6
38.Kg3 ReI
39.a3??
A horrible move, allowing the infiltration of the Black king on
the light squares. But knowing these two players, there was probably
horrific time trouble!
39 ... Ka5
40.Kf2 Rhl
41 .Kg2 Rbl
42.Bd6 Ka4
43.Kg3 Kb3
Despite the extra pawns, White is fighting for his life, since the
d-pawn will fall and the Black d-pawn will race for the end zone.
44.f4 RgI+
45.Kf2 Rxg4
46.Kf3 RgI
47.f5 Bh5+
White has dealt with the threat at b2, but at the cost of the
protection of his king.
48.Kf4 Rf1 +
Chapter 1 1 : 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4
49.Kc4 ReI+
50.Kf4 Rg4+
Resigns.
Game #35
Karasev-Reprintsev
USSR Team Championship 1990
l .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4 6.Bg2 Qd7 7.Nbd2 0-0-0
B.Qb3
B.a3 is another rare option. B f6?! (Better B ...h5! with standard
..
counterplay.) 9.exf6 Nxf6 I0.Qa4 d3 I1 .e3 Bc5? 1 2.0-0 h5 13.b4 Be7 14.b5
NbB 15.Qxa7 Qd6 16.Nd4 +/- Muellcr-Rcick, Correspondence 1974/75.
B... Nge7
9.0-0 Bh3
10.e6 Bxe6
1 1 .Ng5 f5
12.Nxe6 Qxe6
13.Nf3 b6
14.Ng5 Qf6
I5.c5 h6
16.Qe6+ Qxe6
That White is forced into the endgame with equal material is
testimony to the failure of his overall strategy.
1 7.Nxe6 Rd7
How to Play the A1bin Countergambit
18.cxb6 axb6
19.Bf4 Nd8
20.Nxd8 Kxd8
21.Rfdl cS
22.e3 d3
23.e4 Ng6
Black has a very active positi n, with a strong passed pawn.
24.Be3 fxe4
2S.Bxe4 NeS
26.b3 g5
27.h3 Bg7
28.Rac1 Re8
29.b4
White correctly chips away at the Black pawns.
29. . . Ng4!
3O.hxg4 Rxe4
31.bxcS bxc5
32.RxcS Rxg4
33.RaS Rc4
34.a4 Bc3
3S.Ra8+ Ke7
36.a5 d2
37.a6 Bd4
Chapter 1 1 : 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4 99
3S.a7
3S ... Bxe3 39.ReS+ KxeS 40.aSQ+ RdS 41 .Qa6 Rcl 42.Qa4+ Ke7
43.fxe3 Rxdl + 44.Qxdl hS 4S.Kf2 Rd6 46.Kf3 RdS 47.e4 RdS 4S.Ke2 Rd7
49.Ke3 RdS Drawn.
Game #36
Sitter-Rosenfeld
COlTespondence, 1985-1990
1 .d4 dS 2..c4 eS 3.dxeS d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 S.g3 Bg4 6.Nbd2 Qd7 7.Bg2 0-0-0
S.O-O f6
An interesting idea, but it may not be aggressive enough.
9.exf6 Nxf6
10.Nb3
a ) 1O.Qa4 KbS 1 1 .Rel hS 1 2.a3 h4 13.b4 hxg3 14.hxg3 d3 lS.e4 Bh3
1 6.Bhl NhS 1 7. Bb2 Nf4 -/+, Grube--Dintheer, Zurich 1975.
b) 1O.a3 h5 1 1 'b4 d3 12.exd3 h4 13.Rel hxg3 14.hxg3 Qxd3 lS.Qa4 Kb8
1 6.Re3 Qd7 1 7.Bb2 Bh3 l S.Bh1 Qg4 1 9.Rael Bd6 20.Ne4 Bf4! 21 .Nxf6
gxf6 22 .Re4 Bn ! 23.Kxfl Rxh l + 24.Ngl Qh3+ 0-1 , Ott-Din theer,
Correspondence 1990.
10. . . Bh3
1(1) How to Ploy the Albin Countergambit
1 1 .e3 Bxg2
12.Kxg2 d3
13.Nbd4
1 4 .Qxd3?!
14.Nxc6 bxc6 l S.Nd4 looks much stronger. 1S ...Qe4+ 16.f3 Qe8
1 7.Qa4-Analysis.
14 ... Qxf3+
15.Ixf3 NeS+
16.Ke2 Nxd3
17.Kxd3 <5
18.f3 cxd4
19.exd4 BcS
20.dS b5
and White doesn't have enough for his piece. 21 .b3 NxdS! 22.cxdS
Rxd5+ 23.Ke4 Rd4+ 24.KcS Re8+ 2S.KfS g6+ 26.Kf6 Rf8+ 27.Ke6 Rd6+
28.KeS RfS+ 29.Kc4 Rd4+ 30.Ke3 RcS+ 31 .Kf2 Rd2+ 0-1.

Schiller Eric - How To Play. The Albin Countergambit, 1991-OCR, ChessEnterprises, 101p

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schiller Eric - How To Play. The Albin Countergambit, 1991-OCR, ChessEnterprises, 101p

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How to Play the

Chess Enterprises, Coraopolis

Cover Design by E.J. Witalis Jr.

Printed in the United States of America

Published by Chess Enterprises, Coraopolis P A 15108

Typesetting by M.L. Rantala for Chessworks Unlimited.

Set in Palatino, Avant Garde, and Pillsbury Times.

Manuscript completed 16 February 1991.

Revisions completed 3 October 1991

Comments and criticisms are welcome by electronic mail.

The manuscript was prepared on a GT! 386sx computer and then

Chapter 1: By Way of Introduction ......................................5

Chapter 2: White Varies at Move 3 .....................................6

Chapter 4: Spasskys Variation 4.e4 .... . ..

Chapter 5: 4.Nf3 Nc6 (Introduction) ..................................39

Chapter 6: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 ..................................................... 45

Chapter 7: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 . .. . .. .. ................. . ....... . ......... .. 58..

Chapter 9: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bf5!? .

Chapter 11: 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4.. .... ..

WilIiam Cook [The Chess Player's Compendium, 1 902): The

In this Chapter we examine some fairly trivial deviations early

This capture can be delayed, but it is probably best played

7.Qxb7 is met by 7...Nd4 with a clear advantage for Black.

Black already has a strong initiative.

and White resigned because of 26.Qxe4 Qcl+ 27.Rd1 d2 mate. 0-1.

A move much too lightly dismissed by Lamford.

8.. Bxc3+ is miscited by Lamford as the move actually played,

11.0-0-0 Ng4!-Marco & Schlechter.

13.0-0 Bxc4! 14.Bxc4 NceS lS.h3 Nxf3+ 16.gxf3 Qxh3 17.Be6+!!

White continues to liquidate, but an extra pawn in a heavy

22 ...Rd7 comes into consideration e.g. 23.Bxe6 (23.Qxh7 Bxg4

23.Qxg4+ Kb8 24.0-0 Rd2 provides compensation.

3O...Qxc4 is met by 31.Qb8. While 30...Rxc4 runs into 3l.Qd7.

34.b4? Qel+ 3S.Kh3 Rd3+ 36.Kh2 Qh4+ 37.Kgl Rdl+

3.e3 is not a very aggressive move, and it causes little difficulty

4.Qxd4? is just a waste of time. 4.. Nf6 and now:

a) S.cxdS QxdS 6.Nf3 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6= Kuhl-Brumm, Berlin 1984.

White can't approach the pawn, and cannot afford to capture at

29 ...Kf7 30.g4 g6 31.gxfS gxfS 32.e4 f4 33.Kf3 Ke6 34.Kxf4 Nd3+

For S...c6 see Kashdan-Maroczy, Bled 1931.

6.cxdS NxdS 7.Bc4 Nf6 B.Nf3 0-0 9.NeS (9.Qb3 is suggested by

Black can be fully satisfied with his position.

S...Bb4 was suggested by Maroczy. Kmoch suggests that c7-c6

6...Be6 7.Qb3 Na6 is equal, according to Tartakower. B.Qxb7 Nb4

Black adopts the classical strategy of blockading the IQP with

I2...Bg4! I3.h3 Bxf3 I4.Qxf3 Qd7-Kmoch. The placement of the

17...Bf6! is the correct move. The weakening of the queeside comes

20...Bxb3 21.Qxb3 Qd5 is suggested by Kmoch. If White exchanges

21...Nxc3 22.Rxc3 Bxb3 23.Qxb3 Qd5 24.Nxc6!-Kmoch.

26...Bxf3 27.RxdB Bdl 2B.d5+ Rxc3 29.Rxc3 BxdB 30.RcB winning a

32.Qxc3+? Qxc3 33.bxc3 Kf6 34.Kfl Ke5 35.Ke2 Kxd5 36.Kd3 f5

Vidmar-Tartakower, Carlsbad 1907 saw Black choose an inferior

15.Bxd7 Nd3+ 16.Ke2 Nxb2 17.Bxe8 Nxa4 IB.Bxa4 Rb2+ 19.Nd2

24.Qd3!? comes strongly into consideration.

27.Qg3 f6 28.Bxf6 Ne4! wins for Black.

28.Bxg7 Nd2! 29.Bf6 Ne4 30.Rel(30.Qh6 Nxf6 31.QgS+ Kf8

Dixon & Labatt-Em. Lasker, New Orleans, 1907 saw Black

There are alternatives, but they are not troublesome:

c) 5Nf3 transposes to 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 lines.

There are several playable alternatives. Here are two examples:

1O.Be2 a6= Cohn-Wolf, Munich 1900.

Even though White temporarily retains his extra pawn, his

with a clear advantage for Black-Analysis.