|
Black might also try 5.c3 d5!? when White has several
ways of seeking an advantage:
A)
6.exd5 Bd6? (much better is 6....Qe7+! +=/= transposing
to line H which is only slightly better
for White) 7.Qxd4 O-O 8.O-O Nbd7 9.Bg5 ± in
the game Pfleger--Benitez,
Lugano 1968.
B)
6.Qa4+ Qd7! (6....Nbd7 7.e5! dxc4 8.exf6 +=) 7.Qxb4 dxc4
8.O-O! Nc6 9.Qxc4 Qe6 10.Qa4 +=.
C)
6.Bxd5! (This move wins a pawn) 6....Nxd5 7.exd5 Qe7+!?
(7...dxc3? 8.Qa4+ +- but best may be to surrender the pawn
immediately with 7....Be7 8.Qxd4 O-O +=) 8.Kd2! 0–0!?
(Black must lose material, and this is the best attempt
at a compensating attack) 9.cxb4 Qxb4+ 10.Ke2! Qb5+ 11.Qd3
Re8+ 12.Kd2 Qxd5 13.Qxd4 ± and Black does not have
sufficient compensation for the piece.
The
lines below follow 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+
5.c3 dxc3:
D1)
6.Bxf7+? Kxf7 7.Qb3+ d5 8.Qxb4 Nc6 (8...Qe7) 9.Ng5+
Kg6 10.Qxc3 h6 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Qd3+ Bf5 13.Ne4 Ndb4 14.Qg3+
Kh7 0-1 Angskog--Barkhagen,
Gausdal 1994.
D2)
6.bxc3
D2a)
6....Ba5?! 7.Ba3! (7.e5 Qe7 8.Ba3 d6 9.O-O seems more
forcing, but Black might try instead 7....d5! with unclear
play) 7....d6 8.O-O (8.e5! Ne4 9.Qa4+! c6
10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qxe4 d5 12.Qf4+ Kg8 13.O-O +=) 8....O-O
9.e5 Ne4 10.Qc2 Nc5 11.Nbd2 Be6 12.Rad1 += Rheinwalt--Grube,
Havenstein GER 1991.
D2b)
6....Be7?! 7.e5 Ng4 8.h3 Nh6 9.Bxh6 gxh6 10.Qd5 (1-0
Pfleger--Brossington,
Nice 1974) 10....Rf8 (10....O-O? 11.Qe4 and Bd3
+-) 11.Nd4!? (Better 11.Qe4! +=) 11....c6 (11....d6
12.e6! ±) 12.Nf5 d6 (12....Qb6 13.Qd3 Qc5
14.Qe2 ±) 13.Ng7+?! (13.Nxd6+ Bxd6 14.Qxd6
Qxd6 15.exd6 Kd7 16.Nd2 +=) 13....Kd7 14.Qd3 d5 =+ 15.O-O
Kc7 16.Bb3 Rg8 17.Nh5 Qf8 18.f4 Na6 19.Nd2 Nc5 20.Qf3 Bf5
21.Kh2 1/2-1/2 Yepez--Paidoussis,
Leipzig 1960.
D2c)
6....Bc5 (This move is tougher than it at first appears
and may actually be Black's best) 7.e5 (7.O-O!? Nxe4!
8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qd5+ Kf8 10.Qxe4 d5! 11.Qf4+ Kg8 12.c4!?
is unclear) 7....d5! (7....Ne4? 8.Qd5! Bxf7+
9.Kf1 O-O 10.Qxe4 Bc5 11.Bh6! +- Jan Timper; 7....Ng4?!
8.Bxf7+! +=; 7....Qe7?! 8.Be3!? [8.O-O! ±] 8....Ne4
9.Qd3 Bxe3 10.Qxe3 Nc5 11.O-O O-O 12.Rd1 Nc6 13.Bd5 += COMP
Belle--COMP Lachex, Dallas 1986) 8.exf6 dxc4
D2c1)
9.Qa4+?! Nc6! 10.Qxc4 Bf8 11.Qe2+ Be6 12.fxg7 Bxg7 13.Ng5
=+.
D2c2)
9.Qe2+ Be6 10.fxg7 Rg8
D2c2a)
11.Bg5?! Qd5?! (11....Qd3! 12.Qxd3 cxd3 13.Nbd2
Be7! =+) 12.O-O Nd7 13.Rd1 Qf5 14.Nbd2 Rxg7 15.Ne4
Be7 (15....Bb6 16.Rxd7! Kxd7 17.Rd1+ Ke8 18.Rd5!
+=; 15....h6!?) 16.Nh4?! (16.Bxe7! Kxe7 17.Ng3
followed by Nd4 ±) 16....Qg4 (16....Qa5!
unclear) 17.f3 Qh5 18.Bxe7 Kxe7 19.Rxd7+! Kf8
± 20.Rxc7 Qxh4 21.Qd2 Rd8 22.Qe3 Rg6 23.Qc5+
Kg8 24.Rxb7 Rd5? 25.Rb8+ Rd8 26.Rab1 f5 27.Nd6 f4 28.Qc7
Rxg2+ 29.Kxg2 Bh3+ 30.Kh1 Qf2 31.Rxd8# 1-0 Nielsen--Holm-Jensen,
Gladsaxe 1993
D2c2b)
11.Ng5 Qd5 (11...Qd3!? 12.Nxe6 Qxe2+ 13.Kxe2
fxe6 14.Bh6 Be7 15.Nd2 Bf6 16.Rab1 b6 17.Rhc1 Bxg7 18.Bxg7
Rxg7 19.g3 +=) 12.Nxe6 fxe6 (Perhaps better 12....Qxe6
13.Qxe6+ fxe6 14.Bh6 Be7 15.O-O Bf6 16.Na3 unclear)
13.Bh6 Nc6 (13...Nd7 14.Nd2 Ne5 transposes) 14.Nd2
(14.0–0!? 0–0–0 15.Nd2 Ne5 appears to
transpose to the main line) 14...Ne5 15.0–0
0–0–0 (Perhaps better is 15...Nd3!? 16.Nxc4!?
[16.Qg4 Ne5 17.Qh4 Be7 18.Qh3 is unclear] 16...Qxc4
17.Qh5+ Ke7 18.Rad1 Bd6 19.Bg5+ Kd7 20.Qf7+ Kc6 21.Qf3+
Qd5 22.Rxd3 Qxf3 23.Rxf3 Rxg7 24.h4 =) 16.Rae1!
(16.Ne4?! Be7 =+; 16.Rfe1? Nd3 17.Qxe6+ Qxe6 18.Rxe6
Nxf2 19.Kf1 Ng4 20.Ne4 Be3 -+) 16...Nf7 (16...Bd6
17.Ne4 Be7 18.Ng3 +=; 16...Nd3 17.Qxe6+ Qxe6 18.Rxe6
Kd7 19.Rf6 ±) 17.Qxe6+ Qxe6 18.Rxe6 Nxh6
(18...Rd6 19.Rxd6 Bxd6 20.Be3 +=) 19.Ne4! Bb6! (19...Bxf2+?!
20.Rxf2 Rd1+ [20...Ng4?! 21.Re7! Nxf2 22.Kxf2 Rd5 23.g4±]21.Rf1
Rxf1+ 22.Kxf1 Nf5 [22...Nf7 23.Nc5!±] 23.Rf6
Nxg7 24.Rf7 Ne6 25.Rxh7² Rf8+ 26.Kg1 Nf4 27.g4
+= and White's two connected passed pawns are difficult
for Black to match, though Black can gain some interesting
counterplay with b5-b4.) 20.Rxh6 Rxg7 21.Re1 Re7
22.Kf1 Rd3 += with complex play, in which White
has better chances of mobilizing his pawn majority.
D2c3)
9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.fxg7 Re8+
D2c3a)
11.Kd1 Rg8! (11....Bxf2? 12.Bg5+ Kd7 13.Nbd2 f5
14.Rf1 ±) 12.Bh6 a5! 13.Ne5 Ra6 14.Re1 Be6!
15.Nd2 Bd5 =+
D2c3b)
11.Be3!? Bxe3 12.fxe3 Rg8 (12....Rxe3+! 13.Kf2 Re8
14.Re1 Rg8 15.Na3 unclear/=) 13.Nbd2 Rxg7 14.O-O
= Reyes
Najera--Pergericht, Novi Sad 1990
D2c4)
9.fxg7!? Qxd1+ (9....Qe7+?! 10.Kf1! Rg8 11.Bg5 +=)
10.Kxd1 Rg8 11.Bh6 might give White a slightly
better version of lines above.
D2d)
6....d5!
This move may represent an improvement over the H lines
below, since Black does not play Qe7+ here to defend the
Bishop at b4 and therefore can avoid the annoying White
pin by Bg5. Fortunately, it appears that White can show
that Black's loose Bishop at b4 is a disadvantage in the
tactics following 7.Qa4+! (see D2d3
below).
D2d1)
7.exd5?!
Unfortunately White can only gain equality here if
Black plays carefully.
D2d1a)
7....Qe7+ transposes to lines in H below which are
slightly better for White (+=)
D2d1b)
7....Bc5 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 Bg4 10.Nbd2 h6 (Black tries
to break the pin. This is better than 10....Be7?! 11.Qb3
b6 12.Ne5 Bh5 13.Ndf3 Bxf3 14.Nxf3 Nbd7 15.Rfe1 h6 16.Nd4
Nc5 17.Qc2 Re8 18.Bh4 g5 19.Nc6 Qd7 20.Ne5 Qd8 21.d6
cxd6 22.Qg6+ 1-0 Irwin--Bootsma,
Hengelo 1992) 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Ne4 Qe7 13.Re1
Nd7 14.Qd3 Rfe8 15.Neg5 hxg5 16.Rxe7 Rxe7 17.Nxg5
± Nf6 18.d6 cxd6 19.h3 Be6 20.Bxe6 fxe6 21.Re1
e5 22.Qc4+ Kh8 23.Nf7+ Kh7 24.Qh4+ Kg6 25.Nh8+ Rxh8
26.Qxh8 1-0 Fritsch--Roszner,
Correspondence 1984.
D2d1c)
7....Be7! (Preventing the pin by Bg5, Black puts
pressure on the pawn at d5. Notice the many advantages
this line has for Black over the positions arising in
line H below, where Black's Queen is slightly misplaced
on e7.) 8.Bb3 (The line 8.Bg5? O-O 9.O-O Nxd5!
dramatically points up the fact that the Knight at f6
can no longer be pinned) 8....c6 9.c4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2
Qe7+ 11.Kf1?! (White must run for the endgame
with 11.Qe2! Bxd2+ 12.Nfxd2 Qxe2+ 13.Kxe2 cxd5 14.cxd5
b6 15.Re1 O-O 16.Nc3 Ba6+ 17.Kf3 Nbd7 when he should
be able to equalize with careful play, though Chekov
evaluates this position as =+) 11....O-O (11....cxd5!?)
12.Nc3 cxd5 (12....Re8) 13.Nd5 Nd5 14.cd5
Na6 15.Bg5! Qd6 16.Qd4 Bf5 17.h3?! (17.Bf4 Qc5 18.Rc1
=+ Chekov) 17....Rfe8 18.Bf4 Qc5 19.Rc1 Re4!
-+ 20.Rc5 Rd4 21.Nxd4 Bd3 22.Kg1 Nxc5 23.Kh2 Nb3 24.axb3
Rd8 25.Rd1 Be4 26.f3 Bd5 27.Nb5 Rd7 28.Na7 Be6 29.Rc1
h6 30.Nb5 Bb3 31.Rb1 Rd3 32.Nd6!? Bxd6 33.Bxd6 Rxd6
34.Rb3 b6 35.Kg3 Kf8 -+ Svesnikov--Chekov,
USSR 1976.
D2d2)
7.cxb4!? dxc4 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8
White will recover his pawn in this line, but it is unclear
whether he can hope for more than that. The available
games are worth careful study since the lines can really
go either way here with the slightest improvement.
D2d2a)
9.Nc3
D2d2a1)
9....Be6 10.Bf4 Na6 11.a3 h6 12.Nd4 Ke7 13.O-O-O Rhd8
14.f3 c6 15.Nce2 Nh5 16.Be3 Nc7 17.g4 Nf6 18.g5 hxg5
19.Bxg5 Kf8 20.h4 Rdc8 21.h5 = Nh7 22.Rdg1 Nxg5
23.Rxg5 a5 24.bxa5 f6 25.Rg2 c5 26.Nc2 Kf7 27.Nf4
Rxa5 28.Ng6 Rg8 29.f4 c3 30.f5 Bb3 31.h6 gxh6 32.Rxh6
Ke8 33.Rh7 Bf7 34.Re2 Nb5 35.e5 Bxg6 36.exf6+ Kf8
37.fxg6 Rxg6 38.Rxb7 Rxf6 39.Rb8+ Kg7 1/2-1/2 Burkett--Fuzishawa,
IECG 2001.
D2d2a2)
9....Nc6 10.O-O Nxb4 11.Bg5 Ke8 12.Rab1 a5
13.Nd2 Ra6 14.Nxc4 Be6 (14....Rc6 15.Nxa5) 15.Ne5
Nd7 16.Rfd1 f6 17.Nxd7 Bxd7 18.Bf4 Kd8 19.a3 Rc6 20.Nb5
Na6 21.Nd4 Rc4 22.Rxb7 Ba4 23.Rd3 g5 24.Be3 Kc8 25.Ra7
Nc5 26.Ra8+ Kb7 27.Rxh8 Nxd3 28.Rxh7 (28.h4! gxh4
29.Rxh7 Rc3 30.Rh5! Burkett) 28...Rc3 29.Ne6
Bb3 30.Nd4 Bc4 31.h4 Rxa3 32.h5 Ne5 33.g3 Ra1+ 34.Kh2
Rd1 0-1 Burkett--Malmstrom,
IECG 1996.
D2d2b)
9.Bg5! Ke8 10.Nc3 c6 11.O-O?! Be6 12.Rfd1
Nbd7 13.Rd4 h6 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Nd2 Nb6 16.f4 Rd8 17.Rxd8+
Kxd8 18.f5 Bc8 19.a4 Ke7 20.a5 Nd7 21.Nxc4 Ne5 22.Ne3
(22.Nxe5 =) 22....Rd8 23.Rd1 Rxd1+ 24.Ncxd1 Nd3 25.Nc2
Bd7 26.Kf1 c5! 27.Ke2?! (27.Nc3 =+) 27....Nxb4
-+ 28.Nxb4 cxb4 29.Nb2 Kd6 30.Ke3 Kc5 31.g4 Bb5 32.h4
b6 33.axb6 Kxb6 34.e5 a5 35.exf6 a4 36.Nxa4+ Bxa4 37.Kd2
Bd7 0-1 Janecek--Njedlo,
Decin 1995.
D2d3)
7.Qa4+
This move leads to complex play but appears to yield White
at least a slight plus. White generally has good chances
of attack in all lines, especially with Bishops of opposite
color on the board and Black's King often stuck in the
center. In previous analysis I had suggested that this
line was good for Black, but more careful scrutiny has
led me to reverse that assessment.
D2d3a)
7....Nc6? (Though a natural move, this hands White
a piece). 8.exd5 O-O 9.O-O Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Qxd5
11.cxb4 +- Bg4 12.Nbd2 Rfe8 13.b5 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5
15.Rb1 Be2 16.Re1 Qd5 17.Nf1 Re4 18.Ne3 Bd3 19.Qb3 Bc4
20.Qc3 1-0 Jaeckle--Wulf,
Germany 1995.
D2d3b)
7....c6 8.Qxb4 dxc4 9.Ba3! Na6 10.Qxc4 +=
Be6 11.Qe2 c5 12.Ng5 Qc8 13.O-O O-O 14.e5 Ne8 15.Nd2
Nec7 16.Nde4 h6 17.Nd6 Qd7 18.Nge4 Qc6 19.f4 Bd5 20.Rae1
Bxe4 21.Nxe4 Nb5 22.Bc1 Rfe8 23.a4 Nbc7 24.Nd6 Rf8 25.Qg4
Ne8 26.Nxe8 Rfxe8 27.f5 Kh8 28.f6 Rg8 29.Qh5 Kh7 30.Rf3
Qc8 31.Rh3 Qf8 32.Qf5+ g6 33.Qg5 Rh8 34.Rxh6+ Kg8 35.Rxg6+
1-0 Pitschka-Vrona,
Budapest 2002.
D2d3c)
7....Nbd7
D2d3c1)
8.Qxb4?! dxc4! (This move appears more flexible
than 8....a5 9.Qa4 dxc4 10.e5 when the Knight at d7
is temporarily pinned, or 8....c5 9.Qa4 dxc4 10.e5
when the pawn at c5 is loose in some lines.) 9.e5
(9.Qxc4?! O-O 10.O-O Re8 11.Nbd2 Nb6 12.Qb4 a5
13.Qb1 Bg4 =+) 9....Ng4 (Alternatives are 9....Nd5!?
10.Qxc4 Ndb6 11.Qe4 or 9....Ne4!? 10.Qxc4 Ndc5, both
of which look good for White.)
D2d3c1a)
10.e6 Nb6! (10....fxe6 11.Qxc4 Nde5 12.Nxe5
Nxe5 13.Qb5+ Nc6 14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qh6 Qf6 16.O-O Bd7
17.Bg5 is less clear) 11.exf7+ (11.Qb5+?
c6 12.Qh5 Bxe6 13.Nd4 Nf6) 11....Kxf7 12.Ng5+
Kg6! 13.O-O h6 =+
D2d3c1b)
10.Bg5 f6 11.exf6 gxf6! (11....Nxf6 12.O-O +=)
12.Be3 (12.Qxc4? Qe7+) 12....Nde5!
(12....Nxe3 13.fxe3 Nb6 14.Qb5+ Bd7 15.Qh5+ Kf8
16.O-O is unclear) 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.O-O a5
=+.
D2d3c2)
8.e5!
This move, which puts two of Black's pieces en
prise, leads to a clear advantage for White. I
had thought this move simply transposed to the lines
considered above, but it offers White many advantages
and thus changes the evaluation of the entire line.
D2d3c2a)
8....Ng4? 9.Bxd5 +-
D2d3c2b)
8....Ne4 9.Bxd5 Bxc3+ (9....Nxc3 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7
11.Qxb4 +=) 10.Nxc3 Nxc3 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Qc4+
Kf8 13.Qxc3 += Although material is equal, White
has a clear advantage with Black's King stuck in
the center. White's attacking chances are also supported
by the Bishops of opposite color and his strong
pawn majority on the Kingside.
D2d3c2c)
8....dxc4 9.exf6! Bd6 (9....Bf8? 10.O-O! ±)
10.fxg7! (10.O-O Qxf6 11.Re1+ Kf8 12.Qxc4
is unclear) 10....Rg8 (10....Qe7+? 11.Kd1
with the idea of Re1 wins) 11.O-O! ±
White has a very strong attack against Black's King
in the center.
D2d3d)
7....Bd7 8.Qxb4
D2d3d1)
8....Nc6 9.Qxb7 dxc4 10.Nbd2 +=
D2d3d2)
8....dxc4 9.Nbd2 b5 10.a4 Na6 11.Qa3 bxa4 12.O-O
Rb8 13.Re1 Qe7 14.Qa2 O-O 15.e5 += Fritz
D2d3e)
7....Qd7! (This appears to be the best try for Black)
8.Qxb4 dxc4 (Black cannot play 8....Nc6? 9.Bb5!
+- but he can try 8....a5!? 9.Qc5 dxc4 10.Ba3! Ra6!?
11.Nbd2 or 10....Nxe4?! 11.Qe3 f5 12.Nbd2 when, in either
case, White will play O-O-O! and build a strong attack
on Black's centralized King) 9.Ba3! (Probably
the best way to play for an advantage; 9.Qxc4 Qe6! looks
dead equal, but 9.e5!? might offer White some play)
9....Nxe4 (This looks suicidal, but White has
a clear edge after 9....Qe6? 10.Ng5! or 9....Nc6 10.Qxc4)
10.O-O!? with unclear play. White's attack should
more than compensate for his temporary material deficit.
For example: 10....Nc6 11.Qxc4 Qe6 12.Qa4! Bd7 13.Re1
f5 14.Nd4! Nxd4 15.Qxd4 ±
D3)
6.O-O!?
If you are especially brave, you might accept the gambit situation
wholeheartedly with 6.O-O, when play might be reminiscent
of the Danish Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2
5.Bxb2) or the Goring Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 Bb4). White generally does very well in the
available games, but Black's play has been weak. More analysis
and experience with this line will help to clarify the situation.
Likely the greatest challenge to the variation is for Black
to accept both pawns with 6....cxb2! since White is doing
fine in all other lines.
D3a)
6....c2? 7.Qxc2 O-O 8.Nc3 (8.e5! d5 9.Rd1 +=) 8....Bxc3
9.bxc3 d5 10.exd5 c6 11.Ba3 Re8 12.Rad1 (12.d6! +=)
12....cxd5 13.Bb3 Nc6 14.Ng5 h6? (14....Be6! =+)
15.Rxd5! ± (15.Bxd5 +=) 15....Qc7 16.Bd6
Qb6 17.Nxf7!! Nxd5 (17....Be6 18.Nxh6+ Kh8 19.Rg5!)
18.Nxh6+ Kh8 19.Bxd5 (19.Nf7+! Kg8 20.Ng5 leads to
mate) 19....Be6 20.Qg6 1-0 Acers--Lawless,
San Francisco 1972 (20....Bxd5 21.Nf5 Qc7 22.Bxc7 +-
or 21....Rg8 22.Qh5#; 20....Ne7! 21.Qxe6 Nxd5 22.Nf7+ Kg8
23.Qxd5 ±/+-)
D3b)
6....Nc6? 7.bxc3! (7.Nxc3!? Bxc3 8.bxc3 d6 transposes
to the Goring Gambit after 9.e5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qb3
Qe7 12.Ba3) 7....Bd6? (otherwise White gets a terrific
attack with 8.e5) 8.e5! Nxe5 9.Nxe5 Bxe5 10.Re1 +-
D3c)
6....d5?! 7.exd5!? (better 7.Qa4+ or 7.Bxd5! +=) 7....O-O
8.Nxc3 h6?! (8....Nbd7) 9.Qb3! += Bd6 10.Nb5
Ne8 11.Nxd6 Nxd6 12.Bf4 Nd7 13.Rac1 Nf6 14.Bd3 Nf5 15.Bxc7
Qxd5 16.Bc4 Qe4 17.Rfe1 Qg4 18.Ne5 Qh5 19.Nxf7 Rxf7 20.Rcd1
Bd7 21.Qxb7 Raf8 22.Be5 Be8 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Qxa7 Kh8 25.Bxf7
Bxf7 26.Rd7 Qg6 27.Qb7 Bxa2 28.Red1 Bf7 29.Rd8 Rxd8 30.Rxd8+
Kg7 31.Qb4 Ne7 32.h3 Nc6 33.Qf8+ 1-0 Fink--Langier,
Koln 1992.
D3d)
6....O-O 7.e5! (7.bxc3?! d5! 8.exd5 Be7! =/=+,
see D2d2c above, while 7....Be7?! 8.e5 Ne4 9.Re1 gave White
compensation in Schipper-Sacchetto, Zurich Team Championship
1993) 7....d5! (7....Ne4? 8.Bd5 Nc5 9.bxc3 Ba5 10.Ng5
Ne6 11.Qh5 Nxg5 12.Bxg5 Qe8 13.Bf6! h6 14.Qg6! 1-0 Horowitz--Amateur,
Exhibition 1949) 8.Bb3!? (8.exf6! dxc4 9.fxg7
Kxg7 10.Qa4! and White has excellent play) 8....Ne4 9.bxc3
Nxc3 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11.Bg5! Qe8?! (11....Qd7! unclear)
12.Rc1 d4 13.Qd3 (13.Nxd4 =) 13....c5 (13....Nc6)
14.Bc2 g6 15.Qe4 Qe6 16.h3 Nc6? (16....Nd7! =+) 17.Bf6
Ne7 (17....Qf5! 18.Qh4 Qh5! =) 18.Qh4 h5 19.Bxe7
Re8 20.Bf6 c4 21.Qg5 Kh7 22.Qxh5+ 1-0 Mueller--Stein,
Nuernberg 1990.
D3e)
6....cxb2! (Black takes the two pawns and challenges
White to mate him) 7.Bxb2
D3e1)
7....d5?! 8.Bxd5! Qe7 (8....Nxd5 9.exd5
O-O? 10.Qd4 +-) 9.Bxf6! gxf6 (9....Qxf6?!
10.Qa4+ c6 11.Qxb4 Qxa1? 12.Nc3! +-) 10.Qb3
+=
D3e2)
7....Nc6
D3e2a)
8.Ng5 0–0
9.e5
D3e2a1)
9....d5 10.exf6 dxc4 (10....gxf6?
11.Nxh7 [11.Bd3! h6 12.Qh5+-] 11...Kxh7 12.Qh5+ Kg8
13.Bd3 Re8 14.Qh7+ Kf8 15.Qh6+ Ke7 16.Bxf6+ 1–0
Aiello- Julius Chessfriends C1 SEMI Email, 1996)
11.fxg7 Qxg5 12.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 13.Bc3 (13.Qf3
Be6 unclear) 13....Bh3?! (13....Bg4!?
is unclear) 14.Qf3 += Bxc3 15.Nxc3
Be6 16.Rab1 Rb8 17.Nb5 (17.Rb5! +=) 17....Bd5 18.Qa3+
Kg8 19.f3 Re8 20.Nxc7 Re2 21.Rf2 Rxf2 22.Kxf2 Qd2+
23.Kg1 Qd4+ 24.Kh1 Be6 25.Nxe6 fxe6 26.Qa4 Qd3 27.Rc1
Kh8 28.Qxc4 Qd6 29.Qb3 Qd7 30.Rb1 b6 31.Rd1 Qe7 32.Qc3+
1–0 Hopfer- Fawcett, WCCF corr, 1980
D3e2a2)
9....Nxe5 10.Bxe5 d5! By surrendering
a piece for three pawns, Black creates a position
with chances for both sides.
D3e2a2a)
11.Bd3 Ng4! 12.Nf3 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Qf6 14.f4
Bc5+?! (14...c5! 15.Bc2 Rd8 unclear) 15.Kh1
g6 16.Bc2?! (16.Nc3 c6 17.Qc2 +=) 16...c6
17.Nd2 Bf5 18.Bxf5 (18.g4!?) 18...Qxf5
19.Ng4 Kg7 20.Nb3 Bb6 21.Qf3 (21.a4 +=)
21...Rfe8 22.Qc3+?! f6 23.h3 h5 24.Nh2 Re3 25.Qb4
Rae8?! (25...Qe4! =+) 26.Nc5
= R8e7 27.Rac1 Re2?! 28.Nf3 Bxc5 29.Qxc5 Qd3? 30.Ne5
R7xe5 31.fxe5 Rxe5 32.Qd6 1–0 Olsson- Ottengren,
Sweden Cht div III corr, 1988
D3e2a2b)
11.Be2 Re8 (11...Nd7! 12.Bf4!?
h6 [12...Qf6 13.Qd3! g6 14.Bd2 +=] 13.Nf3 Qf6 14.Qd4
=) 12.Bc3 Bd6 13.Re1 c5 14.Qc2 d4 15.Bc4
Rf8 16.Bd2 Qc7 17.f4!? [17.h3 +=]
17...Bd7 18.Nc3 Bc6 19.Nce4 Nxe4 20.Nxe4 Bxf4 21.Bxf4
Qxf4 22.Nxc5 Rac8 23.Rac1 Qg5 24.Nb3 Bd5 25.Qe2
± Rce8 26.Qf1 Rxe1 27.Rxe1 Rc8 28.Bxd5 Qxd5
29.Qd3 Rd8 30.Qxd4 Qxd4+ 31.Nxd4 g6 32.Nf3 Rd7 33.Re8+
Kg7 34.Kf2 f5 35.Ke3 Kf7 36.Ra8 Re7+ 37.Kd3 Rd7+
38.Nd4 a6 39.a4 Kf6 40.Re8 Rd6 41.g3 h5 42.Kc4 b6
43.h4 Kf7 44.Ra8 a5 45.Rb8 Kg7 46.Rb7+ Kg8 47.Re7
f4 48.gxf4 Kf8 49.Re6 Rxe6 50.Nxe6+ Ke7 51.Kd5 1–0
Simpson-Angus, corr, 1996
D3e2b)
8.a3!? Ba5 (8....Bc5? 9.Ng5 O-O 10.Nxf7
Rxf7 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.e5 ± Schwarz, quoted in
Müller and Voigt) 9.Ng5
(9.e5!? Konikowski in ChessBase Magazine 50)
9....Qe7 (9....O-O 10.e5 d5 11.exf6
dxc4 12.Qh5! h6 13.fxg7 Qxg5 14.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 15.Qe2 Be6
is unclear according to Müller and Voigt) 10.Bxf7+
Kf8 11.Bd5?! (11.Bb3 and White has compensation
according to Müller and Voigt) 11....Nxd5
12.Qxd5 h6 =+ 13.Nh3 Qf7 14.Nc3 d6 15.Qd3 Ne5
16.Qg3 Nc4 17.Bc1 Qf6 18.Nd5 Qxa1 19.Qf3+ Ke8 20.Qh5+
Kd7 21.Qf5+ Kc6 22.Ne7+ Kb6 23.Qe5 Qxe5 0–1 Nilsson-Mellbin,
Sweden I/424 corr SSKK, 1989.
D3e3)
7....O-O 8.e5! (8.Ng5?! d5! =+ or 8.Qb3 Be7?! [8....Nc6!
=+] 9.Nc3 Nc6 10.e5 Nh5 11.Nd5 Na5 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.Qa4
Nxc4 14.Qxc4 d6 15.exd6 Qxd6 16.Rad1 Qe7 17.Rfe1 Be6 18.Qb5
Nf6 19.Ng5 Rfd8 20.Rxd8+ Rxd8 21.Nxe6 Qxe6 22.Rf1 Qd5
23.Qa4 a6 24.h3 Qd6 25.Rc1 c6 26.Qa5 Re8 27.Rf1 h6 28.Qb6
Qd7 29.Qb3 Re6 30.Ba1 Qe7 31.Bc3 Nd5 32.Bb2 Re1 33.Qg3
Rxf1+ 34.Kxf1 f6 0-1 Jacko--Parpel,
Chrudim 1993)
D3e1)
8...Ng4 9.Qd4 d6! (9...Be7? 10.Qxg4
d5 11.e6 Bf6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Bd3 Bxe6 14.Qb4±;
9...d5 10.Bxd5 +=; 9...Nh6? 10.e6±) 10.exd6
(10.e6 Qf6 11.exf7+ Kh8 is unclear) 10...Nf6
11.dxc7 Qxc7 12.Qh4 (or 12.Bxf7+ Qxf7 13.Qxb4
Nc6 14.Qh4 =) and White seems to have adequate compensation
for the pawn.
D3e2)
8...d5 9.exf6 dxc4 10.Qa4 (10.fxg7 Re8 11.Qa4
transposes) 10....Nc6 11.fxg7 Re8 12.a3 Bd6
13.Nbd2 +=.
D3e3)
8....Nh5 9.Bd3? (9.Nc3! gives White adequate
compensation according to Müller and Voigt) 9...Nf4!
10.Qc2 Nxd3 11.Qxd3 d5 12.Nbd2 c5 –+
13.Rac1 c4 14.Qe3 Nc6 15.Rfd1 Qa5 16.Nf1 Qxa2 17.Bd4
Bg4 18.Ra1 Qc2 19.Rdc1 Qe4 20.Bc3 Bxf3 21.gxf3 Qg6+
22.Kh1 Bxc3 23.Qxc3 Rfe8 24.f4 Qe4+ 25.Kg1 Nd4 26.Ng3
Qxf4 27.Rd1 Nf3+ 28.Kg2 Nh4+ 29.Kf1 Rxe5 30.Ra3 Qg4
31.Qxe5 Qxd1+ 32.Qe1 Qxe1+ 33.Kxe1 b5 34.Ne2 b4 35.Ra5
Nf3+ 36.Kd1 d4 37.Rf5 d3 38.Nc1 b3 39.Rb5 Re8 40.Nxb3
Re1# 0–1 J. Betita-D. Koltygin, IECG, 1999
D3e4)
8....Ne4! 9.Bd5! (Probably best, and at least
very unclear. White might also consider 9.h4!? keeping
the Knight out of g5 or 9.Qd4!? Ng5! 10.Nxg5 Qxg5 11.Bxf7+
Rxf7 12.Qxb4 Na6 13.Qd4 with some compensation.)
9....Ng5 10.Nxg5 Qxg5 11.f4 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 Qh6 13.f5! c6!
14.Bb3 d5! 15.Nd2 Be3 16.Bc3 Bf4!? 17.g3! Bxg3 18.Qe2
Bf4 19.Rxf4! Qxf4 20.Rf1 Qg5? (Necessary here or
on the next move was 20....Qh6) 21.e6 f6 (21....fxe6!?
22.Rg1 Rxf5 23.Rxg5 Rxg5 +=) 22.Ne4! Qh4 23.Rg1
± Kh8 24.Nxf6! gxf6 25.e7 Re8 26.Qe1! Qh6 27.Qe3!
Qh4 28.Qf4! 1-0 Horowitz--Mayagoitia,
Mexico City Exhibition 1947.
Line
E >>>
|
