BISHOP'S OPENING | DIMOCK TOURNAMENT | URUSOV GAMBIT | TWO KNIGHTS DEFENSE | LINKS
s

H) 4....d5 5.exd5

H1) 5....Bc5 H3) 5....Bg4
H2) 5....Nxd5 H4) 5....Bb4+
  H5) 5....Qe7+


Position after 5.exd5

   Black's best option here is Panov's idea of 5....Bb4+ 6.c3 Qe7+ in line H4. The majority of opening manuals analyze only this line of the Urusov, yet it is definitely not Black's best and White has at least two choices that lead to advantage. Recent practice suggests that White retains the edge even in the main line with 7.Be2 dxc3 8.bxc3, though the tactical piece play can get quite complex.


Index of Lines
Introduction
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
Acknowledgments
Urusov Gambit & Related Links
Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives

H1) 5....Bc5 (5....c5?! 6.O-O! Be7 7.c3 +=) 6.O-O (6.Qe2+!? +=) 6....O-O 7.Nxd4 (7.Nbd2 c6 8.Nb3 +=) 7....Nxd5?! (7....c6! 8.Nc3 cxd5 9.Bb3 +=) 8.Nb3 Nb6 9.Bxf7+ ± Ravagnati--Chienichetti, Corisco 1991.

H2) 5....Nxd5

H2a) 6.Qxd4?! Be6 (6....Qe7+!? 7.Kd1 c6 8.Bxd5 cxd5 9.Qxd5 Be6 10.Qb5+ Nc6 11.Be3 O-O-O+ 12.Nbd2 Rd5 13.Qe2 Qb4 =+ Kuehne--Leopold, 1994) 7.O-O (7.Bg5!) 7....Nc6 8.Bb5 Nde7 (8....Ndb4!?) 9.Bg5 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 O-O-O 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxe7 Bxe7 13.Bxc6 Rd6 14.Bf3 Rhd8 15.Na3 Rb6 =+ Buchner--Morrison, Bad Woerishofen 1992.

H2b) 6.O-O Nc6 (6....Be7 7.Qxd4 += Euwe-Rueb, Correspondence 1925)

H2b1) 7.Re1+ (7.Nxd4) 7....Be7 8.Nxd4 Nb6 (8....O-O? 9.Bxd5 Qxd5 10.Nxc6 Qxd1 11.Nxe7+ 1-0 Curdo--Iappini, Boston 1964) 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Bxc6 (10.Bg5 f6 11.Bxf6? gxf6 12.Qh5+ Kf8 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Nc3 Rg8 15.Qxh7 Rg7 16.Qh6 Kg8 -+ Mieses--Cohn, Berlin 1914) 10....bxc6 11.Qe2 c5 12.Nf3 Be6 13.c4 += Schlechter

H2b2) 7.Ng5! Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3+ Ke6 10.Nc3 dxc3 11.Re1+ Ne5 12.Bf4 Bf6 13.Bxe5 Bxe5 14.Rxe5+ Kxe5 15.Re1+ Kd4 16.Bxd5 Qf6 17.Rd1+ Kc5 18.Qe3+ Kb5 19.a4+ Kxa4 20.Qc5 cxb2 21.Bb3# Winckelman--Feist, Correspondence 1986.

H3) 5....Bg4 6.Qxd4 (6.O-O Be7 7.Qd3 c6 8.Nxd4 Nxd5 =) 6....Bxf3 7.gxf3 Nc6 8.Qe3+ Ne7 9.Bb5+ c6 10.dxc6 Qa5+ 11.Nc3 O-O-O 12.cxb7+ Kxb7 13.b4 Qc7 14.Qc5 Ned5 15.Ba6+ Kb8 16.Qxc7+ Kxc7 17.Nxd5+ Rxd5 18.a3 +- Kichinski--Haigh, Livermore 1989.

H4) 5....Bb4+
White has three good ways of meeting this move, all of which give him at least a slight edge.

H4a) 6.Bd2 H4b) 6.c3 H4c) 6.Kf1!

 

H4a) 6.Bd2
This move risks nothing and actually gives White good chances in practice of gaining an advantage.
6...Bxd2+ (6....Nxd5 7.O-O Nc6? 8.Bxd5 Qxd5 9.Bxb4 Nxb4 10.Qe1+ Be6 11.Qxb4 +- Thierry--Quadrat, Saint-Quentin 1998; 6....Qe7+?! 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ 8.Kxe2 Bc5 9.Bg5 Ne4 10.Bf4 c6 11.Be5 Bg4 12.Rd1 O-O 13.Bxd4 Bd6 14.h3 Bh5 15.Nc3 Re8 16.Kf1 c5 17.Be3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Bxf3 19.gxf3 a6 20.a4 Nd7 21.a5 Re7 22.Rab1 Ne5 23.Be2 Ng6 24.Rb6 Rd7 25.Rdb1 Ne7 26.Bc4 Ra7 27.Rxd6 1-0 Klein--Dormann, GER 1994 or 8.Bxe2!? Bc5 9.c4! dxc3 10.Nxc3 Nbd7 11.Bf4 Bb6 12.O-O O-O 13.h3 Nc5 14.b4 Nce4 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Rac1 Rd8 17.Bxc7 Rxd5 18.Bc4 Rd7 19.Bxb6 axb6 20.Rfe1 Nf6 21.Ne5 Re7 22.Nxf7 += Zavanelli-Padros, North Atlantic Correspondence 1985) 7.Qxd2 (7.Nbxd2 Nxd5 8.Nxd4 Nb6 9.c3 =) 7....O-O (7....Qe7+?! 8.Be2 O-O 9.O-O Nxd5 10.Nxd4 followed by Bf3, and the White Bishop is better placed) 8.Nxd4 (8.Qxd4 Re8+ 9.Kf1 Re4!? or 9....Bf5) 8....Nxd5 9.O-O Ne7 (= Hooper. Despite the position's balanced appearance, Black must play carefully to mitigate White's edge in development, e.g.: 9....Na6? 10.Bxa6 bxa6 11.Nc6 Qd6 12.Qxd5! +-; 9....Nb6 10.Be2 c5 11.Nb3 +=) 10.Rd1 +=/= White retains a very slight edge.

H4b) 6.c3 Qe7+!
This move is generally attributed to Panov, but it had been played by Frank Marshall as early as 1900. Not 6....dxc3? 7.Qa4+! +-. White has difficulty proving an advantage, though he does maintain the initiative with active play following 7.Be2. 

H4b1) 7.Kd2 H4b2) 7.Be3 H4b3) 7.Kf1 H4b4) 7.Qe2 H4b5) 7.Be2

H4b1) 7.Kd2? -+
This move can really start your opponent’s clock ticking, but that may be its only practical value.  Black easily gets in trouble, however, if he tries too hard for a quick kill. It is worth noting that this move was featured in a fantasy game submitted by readers of Andy Soltis's Chess Life column and subsequently published in his book Karl Marx Plays Chess and Other Reports on the World's Oldest Game (David McKay, 1991, pp. 106-107). That fantasy game seems to have taken on a life of its own, for people have sometimes mistaken it for real theory. Greg Verville (see game cited below) writes that he played this move because he mistakenly thought that it had been recommended in Chess Life. And Soltis himself would later make the same mistake: In annotating the game Pillsbury-Marshall, Paris 1900 in his book Frank Marshall, United States Chess Champion, Soltis remarks "7.Kd2! [sic], threatening 8.Re1, would have tested Black severely" (21). I have been justifiably suspiscious of all analysis by Soltis ever since!

H4b1a) 7....dxc3+ (Black also has problems putting the game away after 7....Ne4+ 8.Kc2 Bf5 [8....Nxf2 9.Qf1! Bf5+ 10.Kb3 a5 11.a3 Nxh1 12.axb4 Bxb1 13.Bg5! f6 14.Rxb1 Kd8? 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Ne5 Qc8 17.Bxf6+ 1-0 was the composed game given by Soltis] 9.Kb3? [9.Nxd4! unclear] 9...Nc5+ 10.Kxb4 a5+ 11.Ka3 Nb3+ 12.Ka4 Nd7 13.Bb5 c6!? [13....O-O!] 14.dxc6 Nb6+ 15.Kxb3 a4+ 16.Bxa4 Nxa4 17.Re1? Nc5+ 18.Kc4 Be6+ 19.Rxe6 fxe6? 20.Bg5 b5+ 21.Kxb5 Qa7? 22.Kc4 O-O? 23.Nxd4 e5 24.Nb5 Qb6 25.N1a3 Ra4+ 26.b4 Na6 27.Qd5+ Kh1 28.Kb3 Ra8 29.Be3 Qb8 30.Rd1 Nc7 31.Qd8+ 1-0 Greg Verville-Craig Heirigs, Minnesota 1988) 8.bxc3 Ne4+ (8....O-O!? 9.Re1 Qd6 [9....Ne4+? 10.Re4 Qe4 11.Bd3 += or 9....Qc5? 10.Qb3! b5!? 11.Bd3 +-] 10.cxb4 Qxb4+ 11.Nc3 Qxc4 12.Ba3 Bf5! 13.Qe2 Qe2+ 14.Re2 and White has some compensation for the pawn; 8....Bf5 9.Nd4 [9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.cb4 Ne4+ 11.Kd1 Nf2+] 9....Ne4+ 10.Kc2 Bg6 11.Kb2 is unclear, e.g.: 11....Nf2 12.Qa4+ Nd7 13.Rf1 Nd3+ 14.Bd3 Bd3 15.Rf3 Bb1 16.Rb1 Bd6 17.Re3 Be5 18.Ne6! +-) 9.Kc2 Bc5 (9....Nf2 10.Qd4! Bf5+ [10....Nh1 11.cb4 Qb4?! 12.Ba3 or 10....Bc5 11.Qg7 Rf8 12.Re1 Bf5+ 13.Kb2 Ne4 14.Bg5 f6 15.Qe7+ Ke7 16.Bf4 are playable for White] 11.Kb3 Nxh1 12.cxb4 and White has a good game, e.g.: 12....O-O 13.Bb2 Qf6 14.Qe3 Qg6 15.Nbd2 etc.) 10.Re1 Bf5 (10....f5!?) 11.Bd3 O-O unclear.

H4b1b) 7....O-O! 8.Re1 (8.Nd4?! Qc5! -+) 8....Qc5 or 8....Qd6 -+ is the easy way for Black to demonstrate White's error.  

H4b2) 7.Be3? dxe3 8.Qa4+ c6 9.Qxb4 exf2+ 10.Kxf2 Qxb4 10.cxb4 cxd5 =+

H4b3) 7.Kf1?! dxc3 8.Nxc3 =+

H4b3a) 8....O-O 9.Bg5 h6! 10.Bh4 (10.h4? Bxc3! 11.bxc3 hxg5 12.hxg5 Ne4 -+) 10....Bf5 11.Qd4 Nbd7  =  Estrin--Vatnikov, USSR 1961.

H4b3b) 8....Bxc3 9.bxc3 O-O 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Bf5 12.Qd4 Nbd7 13.Re1 Qa3 14.Bg3 Ne8 15.h3 Nd6 16.Bxd6?! Qxd6 =+ 17.Kg1 Rfe8 18.Rxe8+ Rxe8 19.Qxa7 Nb6 20.Bb5 Ra8 21.Qxb7 Rxa2 22.Qc6 Ra1+ 23.Bf1 Bd3 24.Qe8+ Qf8 25.Qxf8+ Kxf8 26.Nh2 Nxd5 27.g3 Nxc3 28.Kg2 Be4+ 29.f3 Ra2+ 30.Kg1 Bd5 31.Bd3 Nd1 32.Ng4 Bxf3 33.Rh2 Rxh2 34.Nxh2 Bc6 35.Nf1 Ke7 0-1 Millet--Chareyre 1990.

H4b4) 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ 8.Kxe2 dxc3 9.Nxc3 O-O (9....Bg4 10.h3 Bxf3+ 11.Kxf3 += Hajkova--Kiskela, Novi Sad 1990; 9....Bxc3!? 10.bxc3 Ne5!? 11.Bb2 Nd6 12.Bb3 b6 and White’s weak pawns are subject to attack) 10.Rd1 a6 11.Kf1 Bg4 12.h3 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Nbd7 = Medak--Kapic, Zagreb 1997.

H4b5) 7.Be2! dxc3 8.bxc3 (8.Nxc3 O-O 9.O-O c6! = Estrin and Panov, and not 9....Bxc3?! 10.bxc3 Nxd5? 11.Qxd5 Qxe2 12.Ba3 Hausner--Snorek, Prague 1994 or 9....Nbd7?! 10.Bg5 Bc3 11.bc3 Qc5 12.c4 b6? 13.Nd4 Ne4 14.Be3 Nc3 15.Qc2 Ne2+ 16.Qe2 Qe7 17.Nc6 Qd6 18.Bd4 Bb7 19.Ne7+ 1-0 Laes--Flores, Correspondence 1975) 8....Bc5 9.O-O (9.Bg5? Bxf2+! =+) 9....O-O (9....h6?! 10.Bb5+! +=)

H4b5a) 10.c4 H4b5b) 10.Bg5

H4b5a) 10.c4 Re8 (10....c6 11.Nc3 cxd5 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.cxd5 Rd8 14.Bd3 h6 15.Bb2 Bg4 16.h3 Bh5 17.Re1 Qf8 18.Re5 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 Nd7 20.Re4 Bd6 21.Bxg7 Qxg7 22.Rg4 Qxg4 23.Qxg4+ 1-0 Crawford--Steele, Compuserve 1995; 10....Bg4 11.Bb2!? Nbd7 12.Nc3 Rfe8 13.Re1 Qd6 Vinogradov--Rovner, USSR 1956, when Hooper suggests 14.h3 Bh5 15.Nb5 =)

H4b5a1) 11.Bd3?! Bg4 12.Bb2?! (12.Re1? Bf3 -+; 12.Nbd2 Nbd7 = Marshall) 12....Ne4! 13.Nbd2? (13.Bxe4 Qxe4 14.Nbd2 =+ Marshall) 13....Nxf2! 14.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 15.Kxf2 Qe3+ 16.Kg3 Qxd3 17.Kxg4 Re2! 18.Kh3 Nd7 19.Rc1 h5 20.Qc2 Nc5 21.g3 (21.Qxd3 Nxd3 22.Rc2 g5!+ 23.Kg3 g4 24.Nh4 Ne1 25.Rc1 Rxd2 26.Bc3 Rc2! -+; 23.Nxg5 Ne1 24.Rc1 Rxd2 25.Bc3 Rd3+ -+; 23.g4 Nf4+ 24.Kg3 Rxg2# Marshall) 21....g5! 22.g4 Rxd2 23.Qxd3 Rxd3 24.Rc3 f5! 25.Kg2 fxg4 26.Nxg5 Rd2+ 0-1 Pillsbury--Marshall, Paris 1900 (27.Kg3 Rxb2 28.h3 Rf8 29.hxg4 hxg4 30.Kxg4 Rff2)

H4b5a2) 11.Nc3! Ne4?! (Not 11....Bb4?! 12.Qb3! and Black cannot win the Bishop at e2 due to 12....Bxc3 13.Qxc3 Qxe2? 14.Re1 trapping the Queen. But better here is 11....Bg4 12.Rb1 Na6! [12....c6 13.Bg5 +=] 13.h3 Bh5 14.Bd3 Nb4 15.Bf5 += or 11....c6! 12.Qb3 Nbd7 13.Bg5 =) 12.Nxe4 Qxe4 13.Bd3 Qe7 14.Qb3 b6 15.Bb2 Nd7 16.Rae1 Qf8 17.Ng5 g6 18.Rxe8 Qxe8 19.Nxh7 Kxh7 20.Bxg6+ Kg8 21.Qh3 Kf8 22.Qh8+ Ke7 23.Re1+ 1-0 Gazivoda--Savic, Correspondence 1979.

H4b5b) 10.Bg5
As the Pillsbury--Marshall game (see H4c5a1 above) shows, White needs to be careful always of Black's attack at f2. The Bishop is better placed at g5 than at b2 since the pin on the Knight at f6 limits Black's opportunities for counterplay. But whether White should reinforce the center by 10.c4 Re8 11.Nc3! or venture immediately 10.Bg5 is unclear. More practice and analysis is needed. White has had good success with 10.Bg5 but there are no available games featuring White's play against Black's most logical move, 10....Re8.

H4b5b1) 10....h6 11.Bh4 Rd8 12.Re1 g5 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Nxg5! Ng4 15.Nf3 Qd6 16.h3! Rd7 17.hxg4 f6 18.Qc1 1-0 Grave--Zaiser, Correspondence 1965-67.

H4b5b2) 10....c6 11.c4 Rd8 12.Nc3 Bb4 13.Qb3! Bxc3 14.Qxc3 cxd5 (14....Qxe2? 15.Rfe1 +-) 15.Rfe1 Be6 16.cxd5 Bxd5 17.Bc4 Qc7 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qxf6! Bxc4 20.Qg5+ Kh8 21.Qf6+ Kg8 22.Re5 Nc6 23.Rg5+ Kf8 24.Re1 1-0 Skatchkov--Lopatskaya, 1996.

H4b5b3) 10....Qd6 11.c4 Bg4 12.Nbd2 Re8 13.Bd3 Nbd7 14.Qc2 h6 15.Bh4 Bxf3 16.Bg3 Ne5 17.gxf3 Nh5 18.Ne4 Qf8 19.Be2 Nxg3 20.hxg3 b6 21.f4 Nd7 22.Kg2 Qe7 23.Bf3 Bb4 24.Rh1 Nc5 25.Ng5 Qf6 26.Qh7+ Kf8 27.Ne4 Nxe4 28.Bxe4 Rad8 29.a3 Bc3 30.Rad1 Rd6 31.Bf3 g5 32.fxg5 Qxg5 33.Qd3 Qe5 34.Rh5 Qg7 35.Rdh1 Ke7 36.R1h4 Kd8 37.Rg4 Rg6 38.Rf4 Be5 39.Re4 Rg5 40.Rh1 Rg8 41.Kf1 Qg6 42.Qe3 Qd6 43.Reh4 R8g6 44.Rxh6 Rxh6 45.Qxg5+ Rf6 46.Rh8+ Ke7 47.Kg2 Bd4 48.Qg8 Rxf3 49.Qf8+ 1-0 Kreindl--Franz, Vienna 1998.

H4b5b4) 10....Bf5 11.Nbd2?! (11.Bd3 Bg4 12.Nbd2 =; but White should investigate 11.c4! Re8 12.Nc3!) 11....Nbd7 12.Nb3 (12.Nh4?! Bc2!) 12....Qd6 13.c4 Ne4 14.Bd3 Nxg5 15.Bxf5 Nxf3+ 16.Qxf3 Nf6 17.g4!? g6 18.g5 Nh5 19.Bg4 Ng7 20.Rfe1 Rfe8 21.Nd2 Bd4 22.Rab1 Rxe1+ 23.Rxe1 f5 24.gxf6 Qxf6 25.Qxf6 Bxf6 26.Ne4 Kf7 27.Nc5 Rb8 28.Be6+ Nxe6 29.Rxe6 Bd4 30.Nb3 = Hohensee--Stetson, Ventura 1971, but 0-1 in 46 moves.

H4b5b5) 10....Re8
This move may be Black's best but I can find no illustrative games. White seems forced to play 11.Bd3 with chances for both sides. For example: 11.Bd3 (Better than 11.Bb5?! c6! 12.dxc6 [12.Re1? Bxf2+!] 12....Nxc6! =+ or
11.Re1?! Qd6! [11....Bxf2+? 12.Kxf2 Ne4+ 13.Kf1! Nxg5 14.Bb5! Ne4 15.Bxe8 Qxe8 16.Qd4 ±] 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Bb5 Rxe1+ 14.Qxe1 Bd7 =+) 11....Qd6 (11....Bg4!?; 11....h6 12.Bh4 g5!? 13.Re1 Qd8 14.Rxe8+ Qxe8 15.Bg3 Nxd5! 16.Nbd2 Nc6 17.Ne4! with excellent compensation for the pawn) 12.c4 (12.Bxf6!? Qxf6 13.Qc2 g6 14.Nbd2 =) 12....Ne4 (12....Bg4 might transpose to Kreindl--Franz, Vienna 1998 above, but White has the option of developing Nc3!) 13.Bxe4 Rxe4 when white can investigate 14.Nbd2 = or 14.Nc3!? Rxc4 15.Qd3 with unclear play.

H4c) 6.Kf1! +=
This move is theoretically White's best, but it can be difficult to play over the board. White's strategy practically wins a pawn, but he generally must play either very carefully in an endgame or rather defensively in the middlegame, neither of which generally appeals to the average Urusov gambiteer. White's losses in this line, in fact, often result from overly aggressive attempts to seize the initiative. But Black has great difficulty proving compensation against best play
. Players who enjoy some of the endgame positions typical of the Perreux Variation of the Two Knights Defense will feel right at home.

H4c1) 6....Bg4? 7.Qxd4 Bxf3 8.gxf3 O-O 9.Bg5 Nbd7 10.Rg1 ±

H4c2) 6....Bc5?! 7.Qe2+! Be7 (7...Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Kxe7 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bf4 +=; 7...Kf8 8.Nbd2 Bg4 9.Nb3 b5! 10.Bxb5 Qxd5 11.Qc4! Qxc4+ 12.Bxc4 Bxf3 13.Nxc5! Bd5 14.Bd3 Nbd7 15.Nxd7+ Nxd7 16.Bf4 Rc8 17.Re1 Nc5 18.Be5 Nxd3 19.cxd3 Bxa2 20.Ra1 +=/±; 7....Kf8!? +=) 8.Nxd4 Nxd5!? (8....O-O! 9.Nc3 +=) 9.Qh5! c6 10.Nc3 g6 11.Qe5! Nf6 (11....f6 12.Qe2 with the threat of Ne6 ±) 12.Bh6 Rg8 13.Rd1 ± Nbd7 14.Bxf7+ Kxf7 15.Qe6+ Ke8 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Qxg8+ Nf8 18.Bxf8 Bxf8 19.f3 Nf6 20.Re1+ Kd7 21.Qf7+ Kd6 22.b4 Be7 23.Ne6 Qh8 24.c4 Qe8 25.Rd1+ Ke5 26.f4+ Ke4 27.Re1+ Kd3 28.Nc5+ Kc3 29.Qxf6+ Bxf6 30.Rxe8 Kxc4 31.Ne4 Bd4 32.Rxc8 Rxc8 33.Nd6+ Kxb4 34.Nxc8 +-

H4c3) 6....c5 7.Qe2+ Kf8 (7...Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Kxe7 9.c3 dxc3 10.Nxc3 += or 9.Bf4 Nbd7 10.d6+ Kf8 +=) 8.c3 dxc3 9.Nxc3 Bg4 (9...Bxc3 10.bxc3 Nxd5? 11.Ba3 Ne7 [11...Be6 12.Rd1 +-] 12.Rd1 Qa5 13.Bxc5 +-) 10.Ne4 Nbd7 11.a3 Ba5 12.Bg5 += White's passed d-pawn is a lasting advantage.

H4c4) 6....O-O 7.Qxd4

H4c4a) 7....Bf5 8.Bb3 c5 9.Qf4 Be4 10.a3 c4 11.Bxc4 Bd6 12.Qh4? (12.Qd2! += Burkett) 12....Qc7 13.Nbd2 Re8 14.b3 Bxc2 15.Bb2 Nbd7 16.g3 Ne4 17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.Qg4 g6 0-1 Burkett--Bourgault, Correspondence 1999.

H4c4b) 7....Nbd7 8.Bg5 (8.Bd3 Be7 9.c4 b5 10.cxb5 Nb6 11.Nc3 Bb7 12.d6 cxd6 13.a4 Nbd5 14.Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Bg5 Be6 16.Qh4 h6 17.Bxh6 gxh6 18.Qxh6 Rc8 19.Ra3 Re8 20.Qg5+ Kf8 21.Qh6+ Kg8 1/2-1/2 Volkmann--Penz, OST 1997 or 8....Bc5 9.Qh4 Be7 10.c4 Re8 11.Nc3 Nf8 12.Qd4 N8d7 13.Bc2 b6 14.h3 Bc5 15.Qd3 a6 16.Bg5 Be7 17.Re1 Bb7 18.Ne4 g6 19.h4 Nxe4 20.Qxe4 Bxg5 21.Qxe8+ Qxe8 22.Rxe8+ Rxe8 23.Nxg5 += Burkett--Sciarretta, IECC 1996) 8....Bc5 9.Qf4 Bd6 10.Qd2 h6 11.Bh4 Nb6 12.Bb3 Be7 13.Nc3 Nfxd5 14.Bxe7 Nxe7 15.Rd1 Qxd2 16.Rxd2 Ng6 17.Nb5 Bd7 18.Nxc7 Rad8 19.c4 Bc6 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.cxd5 Ne7 22.g3 Nexd5 23.Kg2 Nf6 24.Rhd1 Rxd2 25.Rxd2 Ne4 26.Re2 Nd6 27.Re7 a5 28.a4 g6 29.Ne5 Kg7 30.f4 Re8 31.Rxe8 Nxe8 32.Bxf7 Nd6 33.Bb3 Ne4 34.Bc2 Nc5 35.b3 g5 36.Nd3 Nxd3 37.Bxd3 Nd5 38.Be4 Ne3+ 39.Kf3 gxf4 40.Kxf4 Nf1 41.Bxb7 Nxh2 42.Ba6 h5 43.Be2 Kh6 44.Kf5 Kg7 45.Kg5 Kf7 46.Bxh5+ Ke6 47.Be2 1-0 Lanzani--Bruno, Italian Championship, Arcidosso 1985.

H4c4c) 7....Re8 8.Bg5 Nc6 9.Qh4 Ne5 10.Nxe5 Rxe5 11.Nc3 Bxc3 (11....Bf5 12.Bxf6 +=) 12.bxc3 (12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qg3+ Kh8 14.Qxc3 +=) 12....Re4? (12....Bf5 +=) 13.Qxe4! Nxe4 14.Bxd8 Nd2+ 15.Kg1 Nxc4 16.Bxc7 Bf5 17.d6 +- Re8 18.h3 Re2 19.Kh2 Bd7 20.Kg3 Re6 21.Rhe1 Rg6+ 22.Kh2 Bc6 23.f3 Nxd6 24.Bxd6 Rxd6 25.Rad1 Rxd1 26.Rxd1 Kf8 27.Re1 Bd5 28.Re5 Bxa2 29.Ra5 Bc4 30.Rxa7 Bd5 31.Kg3 Ke7 32.Kf4 Kf6 33.h4 h6 34.Ra5 Ke6 35.Rb5 Bc6 36.Rb6 Kd5 37.Rb4 Ke6 38.Ke3 f5 39.Kf4 g6 40.Rb6 Kf6 41.Rb4 g5+ 42.Kg3 f4+ 43.Kg4 Kg6 44.hxg5 hxg5 45.Rb6 Kf6 46.Kh5 Kf5 47.Rb4 Be8+ 48.Kh6 Bc6 49.Rc4 g4 50.Rc5+ Ke6 51.Rxc6+ bxc6 52.fxg4 1-0 Seubert--Thirion, Huy 1993.

H4c4d) 7....b6 8.Bg5 Nbd7 9.Qh4? (9.Nc3 +=; 9.Bb5! Bc5 10.Qa4 ±) 9....h6 10.Bxh6? gxh6 11.Qxh6 (11.Bd3! =+) 11....Nh7 -+ 12.Bd3 Ndf6 13.Ng5 Ba6 14.c4 Nxg5 15.Qxg5+ Kh8 16.Qh6+ Kg8 17.g4 Re8 18.g5 Bxc4 19.Bxc4 Ng4 20.Qh4 Re4 21.Qg3 Rxc4 22.Nc3 Bxc3 23.bxc3 Qxd5 24.Rg1 Ne5 25.Rg2 Nf3 0-1 Laszlo Kiss-Schieder, Graz 1995.

H5) 5....Qe7+ 6.Be2 (6.Kf1!? +=) 6...Nxd5 7.0–0 (7.Qxd4 Be6 8.0-0 Nc6 9.Bb5 Qd6 and now White should have played 10.Ng5 += in Wium-Beskow, Goteborg 1920) 7....Nc6 8.Bb5 Be6 9.Nxd4 Qc5 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Qh5+ Kd7 13.Bg5 g6 14.Qf3 Bd6 15.Qf7+ Kc8 16.Nd2? (Better 16.Qxe6+ Kb7 17.Na3 ±) 16...Qxc2 17.Qxe6+ Kb7 18.Ne4 Bf4 19.Bxf4 Nxf4 20.Qe7 Rad8 21.Nc5+ Kc8 22.Na6 Nd5 23.Qe6+? (23.Qa3! ±) 23....Kb7! 24.Rac1 Nf4 25.Rxc2 Nxe6 26.b4 Kxa6 = 27.Rxc6+ Kb5 28.Rxe6 Rhe8 29.Rxe8 Rxe8 30.a3 Ka4 31.f4? (31.Ra1!? Kb3 32.Kf1 Kb2 33.Rd1 Kxa3 34.Rd7 Kxb4 35.Rxc7 a5 36.Rxh7 unclear) 31...Kxa3 32.Ra1+ Kxb4 33.Rxa7 c5! 34.Rxh7 c4 35.Rc7 c3 36.Kf2 Re4 37.Rb7+ Ka3 38.Kf3 Rc4 39.Rb1 c2 40.Re1 Rd4 41.Rc1 Kb2 42.Rxc2+ Kxc2–+ 43.g4 Kd3 44.h4 Rd5 45.f5 gxf5 46.g5 Rd4 47.h5 Rg4 48.g6 Kd4 49.g7 Rxg7 50.Kf4 Rh7 51.Kg5 f4 0–1 Corbin--Camilleri, Dubai Olympiad 1986.

 

Line I>>>

 
Contact: Michael Goeller, goeller@rci.rutgers.edu
Last modified: January 5, 2002
Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved