D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3

D1) 6.Bxf7+? D2) 6.bxc3 D3) 6.O-O

Position after 5.c3 dxc3

    One of the most underestimated defensive tries for Black is the bishop check, 4....Bb4+, a move commonly played by tyros who cannot resist a check but one also likely to tempt master players who recognize its potential for transposing to favorable variations of line H. White's best appears to be 5.c3 dxc3 and now either 6.bxc3 (D2) or the speculative 6.O-O!? (D3).

Index of Lines
A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ...
B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4
C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... 
D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+
E) 4.Nf3 d6
F) 4.Nf3 c5
G) 4.Nf3 Bc5
H) 4.Nf3 d5
I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ...
J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?!
K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ...
L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5
M) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6
N) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5
Urusov Gambit & Related Links
Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives

    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 >>>

Contact: Michael Goeller,
Last modified: December 5 , 2003
Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved