|
|
Bc5...................................................................................................................................................... Qh4t(n)
3
Nf3
g3
d6(a)
Qe7
4
Nc3 .........................................................c3
Nc3(o)
Nf 6
Nf6(f)
exf4(p)
5
Bc4
fxe5.........................................................d4
gxf4(q)
Nc6
dxe5
exd4(k)
Qh4t
6
d3
d4......................... Nxe5
cxd4
Ke2
Bg4
a6(d)
exd4
Qe7(i)
Bb4±(l)
d5
7
Na4(b)
f5
cxd4
d4
Bd2
Nxd5
Bb6(c)
h6(e)
Bb4+
Bd6
Bxd2±
Bg4±
8
Nxb6
Qe2
Bd2
Nf3(j)
Nbxd2
Nf3
axb6
Bd7
Qe7
Nxe4
Qe7
Bxf3+
9
c3
Be3
Bd3(g)
Be2
Bd3
Kxf3
0—0 =
Nd4
Nxe4(h)
0—0 =
Nd5(m)
Qh5±(r)
(a) 3 ... Nc6, intending to play a gambit after 4 fxe5 d6, is handled simply by Zaitsev s 4 Nxe5 Nxe5 5 d4 Bxd4 6 Qxd4 ±.
(b) 7 h3 Bxf3 8 Qxf3 exf4 (8... Nd4 is playable but riskier) 9 Bb5 (9 Bxf4 Nd4 and 9 Qxf4 Ne5 are worse) 0—0
(c] Other possibilities are (A) 7 ... Bxf3 8 Qxf3 Nd4 9 Qg3 and (B) 7 ... Nd4 8 Nxc5 dxc5 9 c3. White has the edge in both cases.
(d) (A)6...Na57f5h68Qe2c69Be3=.(B)6...Ng4?!7Ng5h68f5±.(C)6...Be6 7Bb5a68Bxc7± ±.
(e) 7 . . . Na5 deserves consideration. If 8 Bg5 then 8 ... Nxc4 9 dxc4 BbS followed by capturing on c3. If 8 Nd5 Nxc4 9 Nxf6f gxf6 10 dxc4 Bd7 produces a complicated fight, Valvo—Shorwin, Boston 1964. The column is Tolush—Furman, Leningrad 1946.
(f)
(A) On 4... Bg4 either Marshall s maneuver 5 fxe5 dxes 6 Qa4± or
the simple 5 h3 gives White the better game. (B) 4 . . . fs is another
risky attempt best met by 5 fxes dxe5 6 d4
exd4 7 Bc4 (Reti).
(g] 9 e5 is the more usual move here, yet this sacrifice is very interesting.
(h) 10 Bxe4 Qxe4± 11 Kf2 Bxd2 12 Nbxd2 (So. Polgar—Flear, Brussels 1987); now 12... Qd5 13 Rel Be6 14 Re5 Qd6 (Flear) would produce a complicated struggle.
(i) 6 ... 0—0 7 d4 Bd6 8 Nf3 Nxe4 9 Bd3 ~ (Keres).
(j) 8 Nc4 Nxe4 9 Nxd6t Nxd6t is fine for Black, Prandstetter—Augustin, Czechoslovakia 1974. The column is Charousek—Janowski, Berlin 1897.
(k) 5 Bbfi 6 fxe5 dxe5 7 Nxe5 0—0 8 Bg5 (8 Bc4 Qe8 9 Qf3 c5 Rellstab—Ahues, Bad Nauheim 1936] 8 ... c5 9 dxc5 Qxdit 10 Kxdl Bc5 11 BxfO ~, So. Polgar—Sharif, Brussels, 1987.
(l ) 6 ... Bb6 7 Nc3 (7 e5 is worth a try) 7 ... 0—0 8 e5 Ng4 ~8... dxe5 9 fxe5 Nd5 10 Bg5 is difficult for Black) 9 h3 Nh6 10 g4 Nc6 with chances for both sides, Filtser— Khachaturov, USSR 1965.
(m)
If instead 9... 0—0, not 10 0—0 Nd5!, but 10 Qe2 with a plus. After the
text White also
has a small plus.
(n) 2... Nf6 3 fxe5 Nxe4 4 Nf3 Ng5 5 d4 Nxf3t 6 Qxf3 Qh4± 7 Qf2 Qxf2± 8 Kxf2 Nc6 9 c3 do 10 exdfi Bxdfi 11 Nd2 ±, Fischer—Wade, Vincov~i 1968.
(o) 4 fxe5 d6 5 exd6 (5 Nc3 dxe5 6 d3 c6 =, Lundvall—Harding, Wijk aan Zee 1972) 5 Qxe41 6 Qe2 Qxe2t 7 Nxe2 Bd6 with complete equality, Robertson—O Connell, London 1972.
(p) 4 ... d6 is more solid. After 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3 7 Qxf3 Nf6 the game is equal, Milner- Barry—Keene, London 1969.
(q) For the bold, the gambit 5 d4 fxg3 6 Bf4 is attractive.
(r)
10 Kf2 Qxdl 11 Bb5± Kd8 12 Rxdl c6 13 Bc4 cxd5 14 Bxd5 results in
a complex, roughly even endgame, Stewart—Dobrev, Groningen 1984.