TH E TOU RNAM ENT PLAY E R 'S COLL ECT I ON

Series ed ited by R.G. Wade, O . B . E .

Romantic Chess Openings

Vladimir Zagorovsky

Transl ated by Eric Schiller

B. T . Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1 982
©Vladimir Zagorovsky 1 982
ISBN 0 7 1 34 3623 9 ( l i m p )

Set by Hope Services, Abingdon

and printed in G reat Britain
by Billing & Sons Ltd, London,
G u i l d ford & Worcester,
for the publishers B.T. Batsford Ltd,
4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1 H OAH

A BATSFO R D CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R.G. Wade
Technical Editor: P.A. Lamford
Con te nts

Symbols iv
Acknowledgements iv
1 Ponziani Open ing 1
2 Scotch Gambit 10
3 Scotch Game 17
4 Th ree Knight's 35
5 Four K n igh t's 39
6 H u ngarian Defence 57
7 I talian G ame 62
8 Evans Gambit 72
9 Two Knight's Defence: 4d4 81
10 Two Knight's Defence : M:lg5 1 03
I ndcx of Variations 1 23
Symbols & Acknowled g ements

+ Check
!+ S light advantage
±+ Clear advantage
±± + + Winning advantage
Level position
00 U nclear position
Good move
!! Outstand ing
!? I nteresting move
?! Dubious move
Weak move
?? Blunder
corres Correspondence
OL Olympiad
IZ I nterzonal
L League
Ch Ch ampionship
l-SF Semi-final
# Mate

Th is book was written with the collaboration of master Vitaly Terentiev

and translated by US Master Eric Schiller who included some addi tional
material. References and sources were checked and corrected by I n ter­
national Master R.G. Wade.
1 Ponziani Opening
1 e4 e5
2 �f3 �c6
3 c3 (7)
7 the advantage. Nevertheless, recent
8 games and analyses (A. Mi les, L.
I n 1 769 there was published i n
I taly a book titled II Guioco
lncomparible Deg/i Scacchi. I ts
au thor, Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani,
considered a number of open games
in this work, but paid special
attention to the opening 1 e4 e5
2 �f3 �c6 3 c3. The idea of the
Ponzi an i opening is to quickly
occupy the centre with d 2-d4. In
the 1 9th century E nglish masters,
including Staunton, took up and
analyzed this opening, to which they
gave the name 'English Game'.
K. J aenisch, W. Stein itz, M . Chigorin
and P. Keres made great contri­
butions in the research of this
opening. It is general ly considered
that Black can equalize without
particular d ifficu lty in this opening,
and can even count on receiving
Ljubojevic , D. Veli m i rovi c , G. Sax
and others) have shown that the
questions facing Black in the
openi ng are not so simple as had
been previously thought. I n the
variations 3 ... f5, 3 ... d5, 3 ... �f6
Black m ust play exactly, in order
not to fall into the worse position.
Therefore new paths have been
sought for Black, for example
Grandmaster 0. Romanish i n 's move
3 ... j}_e7. Even in the old classical
continuations, however, there are
new possibili ties which allow B lack
to obtain interesting, ful l y equal
play.
A 3 ... f5
B 3 ... d 5
c 3 ... �f6
D 3 ... .Q.e7
A
3 f5 (2)
This is the move Ponziani con­
sidered best against 3 c3.
4 d4
Only in this manner can White
2 Ponziani Opening
fight for the advantage. On 4 ef
B l ack answers 4 ... l'!H6!
4 fe
The continuations 4 ... ed 5 ef
and 4 ... d 6 5 ef lead to an advan­
tage for White .
5 �xeS "itf6
The relatively best chance for
Black. After 5 ... �f6 we have
reached a position from the Vienna
game with colours reversed, and
with an extra tempo and advantage
to White.
(a) 6 Ag5 g_e7 7 �d2 0-0 8 Ae2
"ite8 9 0:0 f6 1 0 �xc6 be 1 1 f3
;!; Schneider-Westerinen, Yurmala
1 978.
(b) 6 Ab5 Ae7 (6 ... Ad6 7 �c4)
7 0-0 a6 8 Aa4 ± analysis.
6 �g4
If 6 �c4 d5 7 �e3 �e6 8 Q.b5
Ad6 Black has a comfortable game.
6 *&6
7 Af4
A good move. White can, how­
ever, try for the advantage after 7
d5 as wel l . For example : 7 ... �dB
8 Q.f4 d6 9 �e3 �f6 1 0 Q.e2 Ae7
1 1 g4! or 7 ... h5 8 �e3 �e5
9 "itd4 d6 1 0 �c4 �f7 ( 1 0 ...
�xc4 1 1 "itxc4 !) 1 1 .Q.f4 �f6
1 2 �bd2!.
7 d6
8 �e3 �f6
8 ... Ae7 was played in the game
Mechkarov-Dimov, corres 1 959.
The play quickly turned in favour
of Wh ite: 9 �d2 �f6 1 0 .Q.d4 d5
1 1 �xd5 "itxg2 1 2 �xf6+ Axf6
1 3 "ith5+ g6 1 4 "itd5 ! ± { 1 4
"itxh 1 + 1 5 <&>e2 .Q. g4+ 1 6 <&>e3) .
9 �a3 Q.e7
1 0 "itb3 a6
1 1 �ac2 �dB
1 2 .Q.g3 �f7
1 3 Q.c4 0-0 ;!;
White's strategy in this variation
was developed by Yugoslav Grand­
master Ljubojevic . One of his
games continued : 1 4 Ae6 .Q.xe6
1 5 "itxe6 � fe8 1 6 "itb3 lhb8 1 7
a4! <&>h8 1 8 a5 �d8 1 9 O-O �h5
20 � a4 Ag5 2 1 d5 ±. It is not
simple for B l ack to defend the
weak pawns at b7, c7, e4.
I feel , that the move 3 ... f5 ,
despite the opinion of several
opening authorities, includ ing Keres,
does not give Black equal i ty.
B
3 d 5 (3)
An active move which may be
recommended for Black.
3
w
 Ponziani opening 3
We now consider: and 8 d4 ed e .p . 9 �d2 �e7 lead
B1 4 Q.b5 to an advantage for B lack.
B2 4 lta4 8 be
81 9 ltxc6+ (4)
4 ..llb 5 de
For 4 ... f6 5 lta4 see var. B21 .
5 �xeS ltg5! 4
A sharp and bold continuation, 8
lead ing to great complications which
are, in my opinion, advantageous
for Black. Qu ieter variations 5 ...
..lld 7 and 5 ... ltd5 are also possible
and are examined below :
(a) 5 ... ..lld 7 6�xd7 ltxd7 7d4 ed 8
ltxd3 ltxd3 9 ..ll x d3:!: Tartakower,
Keres.
(b) 5 ... ltd5 6 lta4 �ge7 (6 ...
ltxe5 7 ..ll x c6+ be 8 ltxc6+ *dB 9 *dB!
9 ltxa8 �f6 1 0 �.a 3 ltg5 1 1 0-0! Bad i s 9 ... *e7? 10 "lllx c7+
±) 7 f4 Ad7 (7 ... ef e.p. 8 �xf3 ;!; *e6 1 1 "lllx f7+ *xeS (1 1 . . *d6
Bogdanov-Farbut, Varna OL 1 962)
.

1 2 �c4+ *c6 1 3 �e3 ±) 1 2 d4+

8 �xd7 *xd7 9 Ac4 lt£5 1 0 0-0 *d6 { 1 2 ... ed e.p. 1 3 �f4+ *e4
§dB 1 1 d4 ed e.p. 1 2 Axd3 ltc5+ 1 4 �d2 #) 1 3 �f4+ *c6 1 4 dS+
1 3 *h 1 *c8. Keres considered th is ±±.
position sl ightly better for Black, 1 0 "lllx a8+ *e7
but Tartakower for Wh ite . I th ink 1 1 �c6+
that after 14 ltc2 (Tartakower) 1 1 *d 1 ltxf1 + 1 2 *c2 f6 + .
1 4 ... g6! (Sozin) 1 5 �d2 { 1 5 b4? 11 *f6!
�xb4 1 6 cb ltxc2 1 7 Q.xc2 �g7 After 1 1 ... *d7 1 2 �b8+ *e7
+) 1 5 ... �dS 1 6 �c4 Q.g7 1 7 �d2 the game m ay be d rawn by repeti­
§he8 1 8 b4 ltf8 1 9 §ae 1 �b6 ! tion of m oves.
the position is approximately equal . 1 2 "llld 8+ *g6
6 lta4 ltxg2 1 3 �eS+ *h5
7 §f1 1 4 *d 1 "lllx f1 +
A recommendation of Keres, 1 5 *c2 Ad6
which lead s, however, only to a B l ack has a large advantage. For
transposition of moves. After . 7 example 16 "Ille S Ae6 ! + (Analysis) .
Axc6+ be 8 ltxc6+ *dB 9 §fl 82
Ah3! 10 ltxa8 *e7 1 1 �c6+ we 4 ita4
reach a position considered below. The move 4 "llla4 seems stronger
7 �h3! than 4 AbS. Here too, however,
8 Axc6+ Black h as several good moves at h i s
Both 8 �xc6 be 9 llxc6+ *dB d isposal. T h e most p romising are 4
4 Ponzlani Opening

... f6 {B21 ) , 4 ... �d7 {B22) and 4 ...

*d6 ( B23) .
The moves 4 ... de and 4 ... �f6
are weaker:
4 ... de S �xeS *dS 6 �xc6 be
{6 ... lld7 7 �b4) 7 11c4 *d7 8 d 3
e d 9 0-0 �d6 1 0 � d 2 �e7 1 1 �e4
0-0 1 2 §d 1 ;!; Ljubojevic -Karpov,
Portoroz-Ljubljana 1 97 S ;
4 . . . �f6 S �xeS �d6 6 �xc6
be 7 d3 (Dangerous is 7 *xc6+
�d 7 8 *a6 de 9 �bS 0-0 1 0 .11 x d7
�xd7 + ) 7 ... 0-0 8 �e2 *e8 (8 ... *d 1 + 1 S 'itg2 �e1 + + + ) .
�g4? 9 �xg4 �xg4 10 eS ±; (c) 9 �fd 2. Here the exchange
8 ... §e8 9 �gS d e 1 0 de;!;) 9 �d2 sacrifice is less favourable for B l ack,
§b8 10 0-0 ;!;, B l ack does not have than after 9 �g1 , but it is stil l
sufficient compensation for a pawn. fu lly playable: 9 ... a 6 1 0 dS ab
821 1 1 *xa8 �b4 1 2 �a3 �d3+ 1 3
4 f6 'M1 *fS 1 4 f3 ef 1 S �xf3 �e5 oo.
S �bS �ge7 Also possible is 9 ... *xd4 1 0 0-0
6 ed *xdS ( 1 0 �c3 e3) �d7 with chances for
7 d4 both sides.
Or 7 0-0 e4 8 �d4 �d7 9 �xc6 B22
�xc6 1 0 §e1 0-0-0! + . On §xc4 4 �d 7
there follows 1 1 ... a6 1 2 �xa6 This move is connected with a
�b4 + + . pawn sacrifice.
7 e4 5 ed �d4
This move has not been tried but 6 *d 1 �xf3+
is deserving of serious attention. 7 *xf3 f5
Keres considered that White obtains 8 d4
the advantage after 8 c4 *dB 9 d S , Tartakower considered 8 .11 b4
b u t Black has at his d isposal a 11d6 9 d3 better for White , but
stronger continuation. even here Black has compensation
8 c4 *d 7! ? (5} for the sacrificed pawn .
(a) 9 dS ef 1 0 gf ( 1 0 d e be 1 1 .11a 6 8 e4
�xa6 1 2 *xa6 fg +) 1 0 ... *h 3 9 *d 1 .11d 6
1 1 de b6 1 2 *d 1 �g6 00• I n this 10 c4 b6
·complicated position B l ack's attack 1 1 �c3 �f6
seems the m ore d angerous. For the sacrificed pawn Black
(b) 9 �gl a6! (9 ... *xd4 1 0 �e2 has good development and chances
;!;) 1 0 d S ? ( 1 0 �e2 §b8 =) 1 0 ... for an attack.
ab 1 1 *xa8 �b4 1 2 �a3 itg4 + 823
(For example 1 3 g3 �d3+ 1 4 'M1 4
 Ponziani opening 5

5 Q.b5 .Q.d7 compensation for the pawn . For

6 d4 example : 1 4 �c3 f5 1 5 �d5 �d6
Keres recommended 6 ed *xd5 1 6 Q.f4 l!l'c6 1 7 �xd6 ( 1 7 �ad1
7 0-0, considering that White .Q.xf4 18 �xf4 l!l'f7 19 �d5 0-0! +)
obtains the advantage. But after 1 7 l!l'xd6 18 �ad 1 c6 + Riumin­
000

7 000 Q.e7! (7 ... �f6 8 Q.c4 *d6 Dzagurov, USS R 1 940. On 19 �e4
9 �g5 �dB 1 0 *b3 ± ) followed by there follows 1 9 l!l'e5 and then
000

<i:lf6 B l ack has fully equal p l ay . �f6.

6 �f6 c
7 ed l!l'xd5 3 �f6
8 0-0 e4 Along with 3 ... d5, a fu lly
9 c4 acceptable continuation .
G reat complications fol l ow in 4 d4 (7)
the variation 9 �g5 h6! 1 0 Q.c4
�xd4! (6)

6
w

I n this position Black has at

his d isposal the fol l owing possibil­
Play turns out in Blac k 's favour: ities:
1 1 Q.xd5 �e2+ 1 2 �h 1 .Q.xa4 C 1 4 ... �xe4
1 3 .Q.xf7+ { 1 3 �xf7 �h7 1 4 Q.c4 C2 4 d6 000

�xc 1 1 5 �xc 1 g5 ! 1 6 b3 .Q.d7 1 7 C3 4 ... d5

�e5 ..Q.f5 + ) 1 3 000 �e7 1 4 .Q.c4 The variation 4 ... ed 5 e5 is
�xc 1 1 5 �f7 �h7 1 6 �xc1 g5 examined i n the 'Scotch G ambit'
1 7 �e5 �g7 + (Analysis). chapter.
9 l!l'h5 C1
10 �e 1 .Q.e7 4 �xe4
1 1 �e5 5 d5
1 1 d 5 ? ef 1 2 dc bc 1 3 Q.xc6 Less promising for White is 5 de
*g4 + + . d 5 ( B l ack also h as the fol lowing
11 �xeS sharp variation at his d i sposal :
1 2 de l!l'xe5 5 ... .Q.c5 6 *d5 Q.xf2+ 7 *e2 f5
1 3 ..Q.xd7+ �xd7 8 �bd2 �e7 9 *b3 d5 oo) 6 �bS
White does not have sufficient �cS 7 0-0 0-0, after which a
6 Ponzlani Opening
position arises which is rem iniscent
of the open variation of the Spanish .
Chances are approximately equal .
The game Ljubojevic-Filip, N ice
OL 1 974, continued : 8 b4 Q.b6
9 a4 a5 1 0 ba �xaS 1 1 Q.a3 Q.cS
1 2 �d4 �xa3 1 3 �xa3 f6 14 ef
itxf6 1 S �a2 and now by the move
1 S ... c6 followed by .Q.d7 B l ack
obtained good play .
C1 1
s �cS 1 979, demonstrated that B l ack
By sacrificing a piece B l ack does not obtain full equali ty in the
attempts to m ount an attack on opening. The game continued : 6
the White king. Prax is, however, �xeS �g6 7 itd4 it f6 8 itxe4
has not supported the correctness itxeS 9 itxeS �xeS 1 0 �d2 d6
of the sacrifice. 1 1 �c4 �xc4 1 2 �xc4 �e7 13 0-0
6 de �xf2+ 0-0 1 4 � e 1 �f6 1 S a4. White has
On 6 ... �xf2 there follows 7 a great advantage in space and
itdS ! ±. stands a bit better.
7 *e2 be en
No better is 7 ... dS 8 cb �xb 7 5 �b8
9 ita4+ c6 1 0 �bd2 fS 1 1 �xe4 fe 6 �xeS
1 2 *xf2 ± Keres. 6 �d3 �cS 7 �xeS �xd3+
8 ita4 fS 8 �xd3 d6 9 0-0 .Q.e7 1 0 itf3 0-0
9 �bd2 0-0 =

Or 9 ... �xd2 1 0 �d2 �cS 1 1 6 .Q.d6!

�xeS ! ite7 1 2 �e1 .Q.d6 1 3 .Q.f4 Soviet M aster Zhukovitzky's
± Keres. move, which I consider to be best
1 0 �xe4 fe in the given position. We exam ine
1 1 itxe4 dS other possibilities for Blac k :
1 1 . . . �b6 1 2 *d 1 ±. (a) 6 ... �c5 7 itg4 0-0 8 itxe4 d6
1 2 itxeS ! �e8 9 �d3 f5 1 0 itc4 bS {This move is
1 3 itxe8+ itxe8+ quoted in a number of opening
1 4 *xf2 ± (8) guides as the best for B l ack. I think
Makarichev-Perenyi, Zalaegerszeg that 10 ... �e8 1 1 0-0 �xeS is not
1 973. worse. Now if 1 2 �f4 �e8 1 3 �d2,
C1 2 then 1 3 ... gS ! Correct for White
5 �e7 is 1 2 �d2 �d7 1 3 b4 �b6 1 4 �f3
For a long time this position t) 1 1 itxb5 ite7 1 2 0-0 de 1 3
was considered rel i able for Black. �gS ! {The Bulgarian M aster M inev's
Nevertheless, the recent game Veli­ move, after which Whi te obtains
mirovic-Smej kal, R io de janiero the advantage. For example: 1 3 ...
 Ponziani opening 7
ttd6 1 4 ttb3 *h8 1 S �d2 �d7 9
1 6 §ad 1 ttg6 1 7 .Q.e3 ± Angelov­
Donchev, corres 1 967; or 1 3 ... W
ttxgS 1 4 ttxcS �a6 1 S ttaS § f6
1 6 �a3 §g6 1 7 g3 .Q.b7 1 8 §fe 1
e4 1 9 .Q.f1 ± ; or 1 3 ... .Q.xf2+ 1 4
§xf2 ttxgS 1 S d6! ttc1 + 1 6 .Q.f1 ±
Zagorovsky-Bczzola, corrcs 1 981 .
After 6 ... .Q.c5 White can count
on obtaining the advantage with 7
<ild3 11b6 8 tt f3 as wel l . For
example 8 ... 0-0 9 11e2 §e8 1 0 The most common continuations for
�d2 tte7 1 1 �xe4 ttxe4 1 2 White are S .Q.b5 (C2 1 ) and S h3
ttxe4 §xe4 1 3 d 6 �a6 1 4 a4 cd (C22) .
1 5 aS .Q.d8 1 6 �e3 ;!; Stern­ C21
Rod in, corres 1 978. 5 .Q.bS
(b) 6 ... .Q.e7 7ttg4 �f6 8 �xd7 The following are also seen :
tte 7 9 <ilxf6+ <ilxf6+ 1 0 tte2 (a) S de de 6 i!hd8+ �xd 8 7 �xeS
�xd5 1 1 ttxe7+ �xe7 1 2 .11c4 �xe4 8 .Q.d3 (8 11c4 .11c 5 9 0-0
<ilg6 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 �a3 a6 1 5 0-0 1 0 �d2 �xd 2 1 1 �xd2 ;!;
§ e 1 ;!; Pripis-Sakhnenko, USS R Pol i h roniade-Veri:ici , Budapest 1 979
1 97S. - tr.) 8 ... .Q.cS
(c) 6 ... tte7 7 ttd4 d6 8 ttxe4 (b) s d5 �b8 6 11d3 g6 7 h3 �bd 7
=.

ttxeS 9 �d 3 ttxe4+ 1 0 �xe4 8 .Q.e3 11g7 9 <ilbd2 ( ? ! - tr. 9 c4!

�d7 1 1 11e3 �f6 1 2 �f3 11g4 Smith, Ciamarra ;l;}. White and
1 3 .Q.xg4 �xg4 1 4 .Q.d4 *d 7 1 S B l ack both have chances in the
c4 §e8+ 1 6 *d2 ;!; Mi les-G iigoric , ' I nd ian-type ' position which has
Bad Lauterberg 1 977. arisen.
(d) 6 ... �f6 7 .11e 2 .llcS 8 0-0 (c) 5 .Q.d3 .Q.e7 (also good is 5 ...
0-0 9 <ild3 .Q.e 7 1 0 c4 d6 1 1 <ilc3 g6) 6 0-0 0-0 7 d5 ( ? ! - tr. 7 4lbd2
.Q.f5 1 2 g4! .Q.d3 1 3 .Q.xd3 �fd7 ;!; K l aric ) 7 ... �b8 8 h3 �bd7
14 f4 ± Chekhov-Psakhis, USS R 9 .Q.e3 �h5 1 0 *d2 g6 1 1 �h6
1 978. *&7 Gutop-Lyublinsky, Moscow
=

7 ttd4 0-0 1 959.

8 ttxe4 �xeS (d) 5 ..11e 3 ! ? �e7 6 �bd2 0-0 7
9 .Q.e2 §e8 .Q.e2 ( Repetto-Scibona, Zarate 1976)
1 0 ttd 3 d6 7 ... ed 8 cd d5 9 e5 �e4 tr.
=

11 �e3 �a6
= 5 �d7
Analysis by Zhukhovitz ky. 6 �bd2 �e7
C2 By transposition of moves a
4 d6 (9) variation of the Spanish has been
This move gives b l ack a sol id reached in which B l ack has good
but somewhat constricted position . chances for equality .
8 Ponzlanl Opening

7 de oeuvre �hS-f4 is not in the spi rit of

In the game Makarichev- Black 's position. Better is 9 . . . !:Je8
Averbakh, USS R 1 973, Black ob­ followed by g6, �g7 and in some
tained a comfortable game after circumstances f5.
7 tte2 ed 8 �xd4 0-0 9 0-0 !:Je8 9 �c5
1 0 �xc6 be 1 1 .Q.d3 .Q.f8 1 2 �e 1 1 0 .Q.xc5 de
g6 1 3 ttf3 .Q.g7 1 4 h3 !:Jb8. 1 1 �c3
7 �xeS 1 1 �xdS? .Q.d6 1 2 m3 �xe4 t
8 �xeS de 11 .Q.d6
8 ... .Q.xbS? 9 ttb3 ! ±. 1 2 g4
9 ttb3 0-0 I n the coming complicated struggle
1 0 .Q.xd7 �xd7 chances are about equal. Velimir­
1 1 ttc2 ovic-Tal, Match Yugoslavia-USSR
After 1 1 ttxb7 �cS and l ater 1 979.
�d3+ Black has sufficient compen­ C3
sation for the sacrificed pawn. 4 dS (TO)
11 �cS
1 2 �f3 =f6
The game Miles-Smyslov, Hast­
ings 1 976/77 continued : 1 3 �e3
ttd 3 1 4 ttxd 3 �xd3+ 1 S *e2
�xb2 1 6 I:Jhb 1 �a4 1 7 !:Jxb7 �d6
1 8 *d3 !:Jfd8 1 9 *c2 �cS 20
�xeS .Q.xcS 21 !:Jxc7 �xf2 =.

C22
S h3 .Q.e7
S ... �xe4? loses a piece for
Black after 6 dS ; and after S ... g6
6 .Q.e3 .Q.g7 7 de de 8 ttxd8+ �xd8 An interesting continuation, after
9 �bd2 White stands slightly better: which there m ay arise a position
Velimirovic-Harandi, Rio de J aniero from the Two Knight's defence
IZ 1 979. with an extra tempo {c3) for White.
6 .Q.e3 0-0 Stil l , this does not guarantee White
7 dS �b8 an advantage.
8 .Q.d3 �bd7 s .Q.bS
Worse is 8 ... �e8 9 g4 c6 1 0 I f S ed ttxdS 6 �e2 ed 7 cd an
c4 g6 1 1 .Q.h6 �g7 1 2 �c3 �d7 approximately equal position is
1 3 ttd2 �f6 1 4 0-0-0 ± Makropou­ reached, which can arise also from
los-lvkov, Praia de Rocha/Aibufeira the Scotch Gambit. Accord ing to
z 1 978. Keres' analysis, S de �xe4 6 .Q.d 3
9 c4 .Q.cS 7 0-0 .Q.g4 8 �bd2 �gS gives
Tal recommends 9 0-0 �hS 1 0 Black a good game.
c4 �f4 1 1 "ltc2 ;t, but the man- S ed
 Ponziani opening 9

6 e5 Weaker is 4 ... d6 5 �b5 .Q.d7 .

Or 6 �xd4 de 7 �xc6 itxd 1 + White's advantage in this position
8 <llxd 1 a6 9 _g_a4 _g_d7 = Ke res. was demonstrated vividly in the
6 4:lxc1 fol lowing game : 6 0-0 �f6 7 �e1
7 �xd4 _g_d 7 0-0 8 d 5 �b8 9 �xd 7 �bxd7 1 0
Thus proceeded the game Makar­ c4 �e8 1 1 �c3 g6 1 2 �h6 �g7
ichev-Suetin, USS R 1 978. After 8 1 3 itd2 f5 1 4 ef gf 1 5 �g5 �xg5
itb3 ? ! a6 ! 9 itxe4 �xd4 1 1 itxd4 1 6 �xg5 ite8 1 7 f4 itg6 1 8 �b5
§a4 1 2 b4 c5 1 3 ite3 cb 1 4 cb h6 1 9 �h4 §f7 20 -'lg3 ef 21
�xb4+ B lack had an excellent game. �xf4 �c5 22 -'lxh6 �e4 23 ite3
More rel iable for White wou ld have §ae8 24 �d4 ;!; Zagorovsky­
been the continuation 8 �xc6 be Petrienko, USS R 1 980.
9 0-0 �e 7 =. ( 1 0 �e3 0-0 1 1 f3 5 cd d5
�c5 1 2 b4 �e6 1 3 f4 �xd4 1 4 6 ed �b4
�xd4 ;!; Herborn-Heamer, corres 7 Q.b5+ �d7
1 977/78 - tr.) 8 �xd7+
D On 8 �c4 there can follow 8 ...
3 �e 1 (1 1) �f5 ! ? 9 ita4+ �f8 oo .
8 'l1'xd7
17 9 0-0 �xd5
w 1 0 �e5 'l1'd6
1 1 'l1'g4 Q.f6
1 2 �c3 �ge7
1 3 �e4 'l1'e6
14 'l1'xe6 fe
I n th is simpl i fied position Black
has a well-placed knight on d5, and
his pawn at e6 is no weaker than
the white pawn at d4. The game is
level . Sax-Romanishin continued
Soviet Grandmaster Romanish i n 's 1 5 �c5 �f5 1 6 �xe6 �e7 1 7 �f4
move, which he successfully used i n �xf4 1 8 Q.xf4 �xd4 1 9 §ae 1 �e6
his game with Sax a t Tilburg, 1 979. 20 �g3 §hd8 21 §e3 �f8 22 �g4
4 d4 ed ! 'll£7 23 §fe1 §e8 =.
2 Scotch Gambit
I n the Scotch Gambit ( 1 e4 eS
2 oDf3 oDc6 3 d4 ed without 4 oDxd4,
which is the Scotch Game) White
does not lose time recapturing the
pawn at d4, but rather continues
with his development by 4 .Q.c4, or
offers a new sacrifice with 4 c3 in
the spirit of the Danish Gam bit.
The move 4 .Q.c4 was first met in
two match games played by corres­
pondence between Edinburgh and
London in 1 824. The con tinuation
4 c3 is sometimes called the Goring
Gambit.
A 4 .Q.c4
B 4 C3
A 7 0-0 d6 8 h3 .Q.d7 + ) oDxf7 7
( 1 e4 eS 2 oDf3 oDc6 3 d4 ed)
4 llc4 (12)
4 .Q.cS
It is dangerous to play 4 ... .Q.b4+
because of S c3 de 6 0-0 cb 7
.Q.xb 2 ; or 6 ... d6 7 a3 .Q.aS 8 b4
.Q.b6 9 itb3, where White has a
strong attack in both cases. I nstead
of 4 ... .Q.cS it is possible to recom­
mend 4 ... oDf6 with a transposition
into the Two Knight's Defence.
S c3
The best move. Other contin­
uations are worse.
(a) S 0-0 d6 6 c3 (6 §e1 oDge7 7
oDgS oDeS + ) .Q.g4 7 itb3 .Q.xf3 8
.Q.xf7+ *f8 9 gf llb6 + or 9 . . oDeS
.
{b) S oDgS oDh6 6 oDxf7 (6 ithS itf6
.Q.xf7+ *xf7 8 ith5+ g6 9 itxc5
dS! +
s d3?!
This i s not the strongest move .
Black has two other fully recom­
mendable possibilities:
(a) S ... oDf6! transposing into the
=
I talian Game
(b) S ... de 6 .Q.xf7+ *xf7 7 itdS+
�8 8 itxcS+ ite7 9 itxc 3 ! ? itxe4+
1 0 .Q.e3 d6. I n the position which
h as arisen White has sufficient
compensation for a pawn, but no
more .
6 b4! .Q.b6
 Scotch Gambit 11
7 itb3 'C'tf6 81
8 0-0 d6 4 de
9 a4 a6 B 1 1 S {)xc3
1 0 aS �a7 8 1 2 S �c4
1 1 b S ! ;!; 81 1
(a) 1 1 ... ab? 1 2 a6 ! ba 1 3 �dS S {)xc3 �b4!
{)ge7 ( 1 3 ... �b7 1 4 § xa6 �xf2+ The best continuation. S ... d6
1 S !3xf2 !3xa6 1 6 {)gS ± ) 1 4 �gS 6 �xc4 does not give fu l l com­
±± pensation for example:
(b) 1 1 . . . {)eS 1 2 {)xeS de 1 3 ba (a) 6 ... �e6 7 �xe6 fe 8 itb3 itc8
ba 14 ita4+! �d 7 1 S itd 1 {)e 7 1 6 9 {)g5 {)d8 1 0 f4! �e7 ( 1 0 ... {)h6
itxd 3 Q.c8 1 7 {)a3 ;!; Svcshnikov­ 1 1 fS {)hf7 1 2 {)xf7 {)xf7 1 3 fe
A. Petrosian, USS R 1 974. {)d8 1 4 e7 �xe7 1 5 {)d 5 itd7
8 1 6 0-0 ± Stein-Muratov, Y:zF 27th
( 1 e4 eS 2 {)f3 {)c6 3 d4 cd) USS R Ch 1 9S9) 1 1 fS ! �xgS 1 2
4 c3 (13) �xgS {)f7 1 3 fe {)xgS 1 4 itbS+
± Lyskov-Solovyev, USS R Army,
Moscow 1 958.
(b) 6 ... �e7 7 itb3 {laS 8 �xf7+
*1'8 9 ita4 c6 1 0 �xg8 �xg8 1 1
0-0 ;!;
( c) 6 ... {)f6 and now:
(c1 ) 7 {)gS {)e5 8 �b3 (8 �bS+ c6
9 f4 {)eg4 1 0 �c4 dS = K eres) 8 ...
h6 9 f4 hg (after 9 ... �g4 1 0
{)f3 ! White maintains an attacking
position) 1 0 fe �g4 1 1 �a4+! ( 1 1
itd4? de 1 2 itxe5+ ite7 1 3 itxe7+
White p lays in gambit style, �xe7 1 4 �xgS Q.d6 1 5 h3 -'teS +
hoping for an attack. The move 4 Mariotti-Smejkal, Leni ngrad 1 977)
c3 was in Alekhine's repertoire. I n c6 1 2 itb3 ± Thomas-Waters,
recent times it h as occasionally England 1 968.
been taken up by Grandm asters (c2) 7 itb3 itd7 8 {)g5 {)e5 9 -'tbS
Velim irovic, Ljubojevic and Sax . c6 1 0 f4 {)eg4 ( 1 0 ... cb 1 1 fe de
I thi n k that the correctness of the 1 2 �e3 ± Alekhine-8erlinsky,
gambit is dubious. Black obtains Odessa 1 91 8 ; 1 0 ... {)g6 1 1 �d3 h6
a good position whether he accepts 12 -tlf3 �e7 1 3 �d2 ;!;) 1 1 h3 cb
the gambit or decli nes it with the 1 2 hg b4 1 3 -tldS b6 1 4 �e3 ! ? ( 1 4
move 4 ... d S . Black, however, is {)xf6+ gf 1 S lhh 7 §xh 7 1 6 -tlxh 7
required to play exactly. ;!; Ljubojevic-Smej kal, Wij k aan Zee
B 1 4 ... de 1 972) 1 4 ... {)xdS 1 5 itxd S �b7
B2 4 ... -tlf6 1 6 itb 3 h6 1 7 eS dS ( 1 7 ... de? 1 8
B3 4 ... dS �d 1 itc7 1 9 -tlxf7! itxf7 20*<14+
12 Scotch Gambit
± ±) 1 8 fS lk8 1 9 e6 fe 20 �xe6
ttbS 21 �d4 ± Pan bu kchan­
Pinter, Varna 1 977.
6 �c4 d6
I n the event of 6 ... �f6, the
strongest m ove for White is 7 e S ! ,
with a sample continuatio n : 7 ... d S
8 ef de 9 ttxd8+ �xd8 1 0 fg §g8
1 1 �h6 �e6 1 2 0-0-0 �xc3 1 3 be
with an advantage for White, for
example:
(a) 1 3 ... �cS 14 �gS �d3+ 1 S
§xd3 cd 1 6 �xh7 rtJe7 1 7 §e1 +
Ce6 1 8 f4 fS 1 9 g4 't/d6 20 gf
.Q.xfS 21 �f6 ± Levy-Karakl aj ic ,
Cienfuegos 1 972;
(b) 1 3 ... {lxg7 1 4 {ld4! {le6 1 S
§he1 rtJe7 1 6 .Q.f4 't/f6 1 7 .Q.eS+
rtJg6 1 8 §e3 h6 1 9 §g3+ 't/h 7 20
§f3 �gS 21 §f4 § f8 22 {lbS �e6
23 lhc4 ± Nord strom-Hul tkuist,
corres 1 974.
7 0-0
No better for White is 7 "l'b3
.Q.xc3+ 8 be (8 ttxc3 tt£6 9 ttb3
�h6 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 .Q.d2 �g4
1 2 .Q.c3 �geS 1 3 beS de 1 4 f4
.Q.e6 + Karlsson-Lind, corres 1 97S)
8 ... "l'e7 (8 ... "l'd 7 ! ? 9 0-0 �aS 1 0
"l'b4 �xc4 + ) 9 0-0 �f6 1 0 Q.dS
(1 0 .Q.gS 0-0 + M inev-M atanovic ,
Moscow 1 9S6 ; 1 0 eS {)xeS 1 1
�xeS de 1 2 .Q.a3 transposes to a
position considered below) 1 0 ...
0-0 1 1 §e 1 {leS 1 2 �xeS "l'xeS
1 3 f4 "l'hS 1 4 eS {lxdS 1 S "l'xdS
§d8 1 6 .Q.a3 c6 1 7 "l'd4 d S +
Velimi rovic-Tarjan, Buenos Aires
OL 1 978.
7 .Q.xc3
8 be �f6
Worse i s 8 Q.g4 ? ! 9 "l'b3
.Q.xf3 1 0 .Q.xf7+ rtJf8 1 1 gf �eS
1 2 .Q.xg8 §xg8 1 3 f4 {lf3+ 1 4 rtJg2
�h4+ 1 S 't/h 1 ttd7 1 6 fS §e8.
This compl icated position was met
in 1 97 1 in the game Ciocal tea­
Karakl aj ic . Later, in 1 976 in
the correspondence game M i lu kas­
Sutkus it was demonstrated that it
favoured White : 1 7 ttxb 7 ! tta4 1 8
f3 ttc2 1 9 ttb2 ttd3 20 ttf2 gS
2 1 .Q.xgS §xe4 22 llxh4 §c2 23
ttxa7 ±
9 eS {)xeS
10 {)xeS de
1 1 "l'b3
1 1 "l'xd8+ rtJxd8 1 2 .Q.x f7 't/e 7
1 3 .Q.b 3 .Q.e6 +
11 "l'e7
1 2 Q.a3 cS (14}
14
w
This is a position which is
important for the evaluation of the
entire variation . White has definite
compensation for the two sacrificed
pawns, but I thi n k that Black has at
least equal chances.
We exam ine two sample contin­
uations:
(a) 13 .Q.bS+ .Q.d7 1 4 Q.xd7+ {lxd 7
1 S "l'xb7 §b8 1 6 "l'xa7 0-0 =. The
continuation of the game Chudin­
ovskikh-Zakharov, RSFS R Ch 1 979
was: 1 7 J;lfd1 J;la8 1 8 "l'xd7 "l'xd7
 Scotch Gambit 13

1 9 lhd7 §xa3 20 §dS §xc3 21 USS R Ch 1 959) 8 . . . d6 9 0-0-0 ±

§xeS Y:z-Y:z 7 0-0
(b) 1 3 ttbS+ �d7 1 4 §ad 1 ( 1 4 Another possibil ity for White is
§ae 1 0-0 1 5 f4 e 6 1 6 ttb3 e4 +, 7 4"lc3, against which it is possible
Penrose-Unzicker, Leipzig O L 1 960) to recommend 7 ... ..ll e 7, and now:
14 ... 0-0 1 5 f4 e4. The advantage (a) 8 4"ld5 4"lf6 9«rc2 0-0 and B l ack
is on Black's side, e .g. 1 6 fS b6 1 7 maintains his material advantage in
«rc6 §b8 1 8 llc1 4"lf6 + (Analysis) a simple position.
B12 (b) 8 ttb3 4"la5 9 ..ll xf7+ '\tf8 1 0
5 ..llc4 cb «ra4 '\txf7 1 1 «rxaS c6! 1 2 «ra4
Less logical is 5 . . . c2. For 4"lh6 +
example: 6 «rxc2 ..ll b4+ 7 4"lc3 d6 White can also play 7 ttb3, on
8 0-0 4"lxc3 9 be 4"lf6 1 0 lla3 0-0 which B l ack m ust rep ly 7 ... 4"la5.
11 eS 4"lxe5 1 2 4"lxe5 de 1 3 §ad 1 For example 8 ..ll x f7+ '\te7 9 «rd S
..ll d 7 1 4 §fe1 «re8 1 5 llxf8 '\txf8 (9 «ra4 '\txf7 1 0 «rxaS ..lle 7 1 1 0-0
1 6 «re2 ± Vel i m i rovic-Romanishin, c6 + ) 9 ... c6 1 0«rgS 4"lf6 1 1 ..Q.h5
Yugoslavia-USS R 1 975. 4"lc4 1 2 ..llc 3 h6! 1 3 tth4 gS 1 4
6 ..ll x b2 (7 5} 4"lxg5 h g 1 5 «rxg5 4"le5 ! and i f 1 6
..ll x e5, then 1 6 ... «ra5+ winning
O'Kelly.
7 ..ll e 6
8 ..ll x e6 fe
9 ttb3 ttd7
1 0 4"lg5
1 0 ttxb7 ? ? §b8 + +
10 4"ld8
1 1 f4 4"lf6
1 2 4"ld2
(a) 1 2 f5 e5 1 3 4"lc3 h6 1 4 4"le6 c6
1 5 §ad 1 4"lxe6 1 6 fe «rc7 and
What's better: two extra pawns Black successfu lly defends, m ain­
or the attacking position? I n my taining the material advantage,
view, Blac k 's material advan tage E. Szabo-Kostic , Rumania 1 970.
ou tweighs White's attack, bu t (b) 12 e5 de 1 3 fe 4"ld5 1 4 4"ld2
Black m ust defend very carefully. ..Q.e7! (worse is 1 4 . . . «rc6? 1 5 �h 1
6 d6! ttb6 1 6 «ra4+ «rc6 1 7 «re4 ±
6 ... ..ll b 4+ 7 4"lc3 4"lf6 (7 ... d6 Krantz-Zilberg, corres 1 974) with
8 «rb3 4"lh6 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 g4 or transposition into the main line,
8 . . . ..ll e6 9 ..ll x e6 fe 1 0 0-0«re 7 1 1 exam ined below.
4"le2 with a strong attack for White) 12 ..lle 7
8 ttc2 (8 e 5 ? d5 9 ef«rxf6 1 0 0-0 1 3 e5 de
..ll x c3 «rxc3 1 2 «re2 ..ll e6 1 3 ..ll x d5 14 fe 4"ld5
0-0 + Stein-Spassky, Y:zF 27th 1 4 ... «rxd2? 1 5 ef ±
 14 Scotch Gambit
1 5 �de4 h6
16 *h3 *c6!
Black's position, having two
extra pawns, is better. The game
Nun-Dunhaupt, corres 1 975-77,
supported this evaluation : 1 7 .Q.d4
!::lf8 1 8 !::lxf8+ ( 1 8 !::lfc l *a4} 1 8 ...
.Q.xf8 1 9 *h5+ 1id 7 20 �h 7 (20
�f3 �f4 + + ) 20 ... .Q.e7 2 1 *g6
*c4 22 .Q.f2 (22 .Q.b2 .Q.a3 ! + or
22 !::ld l �c6 +) 22 ... 1ic8 23 !::te l
.Q.b4 2 4 !::ld 1 b 6 +
82
4 �f6
With this move Black decl ines
the gam bit. I t is also possible to
decline the gambit with 4 ... d 3
(the m ove 4 ... d 5 is exami ned
under C). After 4 ... d3 5 .Q.xd 3
White obtains the freer position,
and i t i s not easy for B l ack to reach
a position w ith equal chances.
(a) 5 ... .Q.c5 6 0-0 d6 7 b4 .Q.b6
8 a4 a6 9 �a3 :!; Keres
(b) 5 ... d6 6 .Q.f4 (6 h3 g6! ? 7 .Q.g5
�f6 8 �bd2 .Q.g7 9 �d4 0-0 1 0
�xc6 be 1 1 f4 !::lb 8 1 2 0-0 *e8 !
1 3 *el �d7 = Raaste-Westerinen,
Helsinki 1 979) 6 ... .Q.e7 7 h3 �f6
8 �bd2 .Q.d7 9 *c2 �h5 1 0 Ae3
g6 1 1 0-0-0 �e5 1 2 .Q.e2 �xf3
1 3 �xf3 :!; N ordsto m - Lind, corres
1 976-8.
5 e5 (1 6)
Th is position may also arize
from the Ponziani Opening after
1 e4 e5 2 �f3 �c6 3 c3 �f6 4 d4
ed 5 e5. Practice h as shown that
White h as the better chances.
5 �e4
The rarely met 5 ... �d5 does
not release Black from difficulties.
(a) 6 �b5 a6 7 Aa4 Ae7 8 �xd4
�xd4 9 *xd4 �b6 1 0 .Q.c2 ±
Ch igorin-Gunsberg, Havana 1 890.
(b) 6 cd .Q.e7? ( stronger is 6 ... d6
7 .Q.b5 .Q.e7 t ) 7 *b3 �b6 8 d 5 ±
Mach u lsky-Shereshevsky, USS R
Young Masters Ch 1 974.
6 *e2
6 cd Q.b4+ 7 �bd2 d5 =
6 f5
6 ... d 5 7 ed f5 8 �xd4 (8 �bd2
Axd6 9 �xe4 fe 1 0 *xe4 'l'te7 1 1
'l'txe7+ Axe7 1 2 <ilxd4 �xd4 1 3 cd
Ae6 :!; K l ovan-Dydyshko, USS R
1 979) 8 . . . �x.d 4 9 c d Axd6 1 0
f3 'l'th4+ ( 1 0 . . . .Q.b4+ 1 1 1id 1
'l'txd4+ 1 2 1ic2 ! ±) 1 1 1id 1 0-0 1 2
fe fe 1 3 h 3 !::lf2 1 4 '�'tel llg3 1 5
�c3 Q.f5 1 6 �e2 .Q.g6 1 7 <ilxg3
'l'txg3 1 8 Ae3 ± The sharp sk irmish
has concluded in White 's favour.
Uzman-Bisguier, Norristown 1 973.
7 ef
7 <ilxd4 .Q.c5 ! 8 <ilxf5 ? 0-0 9
*xe4 d 5 1 0 ed .Q.xf2 +
7 d5
8 <ilbd2!
Worse is 8 �xd4 �xd4 9 cd
'llf' 7 ! 1 0 fg .Q.b4+ 1 1 1i d 1 §e8 1 2
'l'th5+ N ordstrom-Erlandson, corres
1 976-78.
After 8 �bd 2 ! White obtains
 Scotch Gambit 75

the advantage, i .e . : 6 ... .Q.b4+ usual ly leads to

(a) 8 . . . d 3 9 *e3 .Q.c5 1 0 fg §g8 Variation C 1
1 1 4)d4 ± . 83 1
(b) 8 ... .Q.f5 9 4)xe4 de 1 0 n+ 6 4)f6
'tixf7 1 1 4)g5+ 'tlf6 ? ( 1 1 ... 'tie8 t) 7 4)c3 .Q.b4
1 2 g4 h6 1 3 h4 .Q.g6 1 4 4)xe4+ ± 8 .Q.e2 4)e4
Duckstei n-Wittman , Kapfenburg (a) 8 ... .Q.g4 9 0-0 .Q.xc3 1 0 be 0-0
1 976. 1 1 h3 .Q.h5 1 2 §b1 t Ghizdavu­
(c) 8 ... *xf6 9 4)xc4 d e 1 0 *xc4+ Padevsky , Athens 1 971 .
*e6 1 1 .Q.d 3 ! de 1 2 0-0 *xe4 (b) 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 *dB 1 0 .Q.g5 h6
1 3 .Q.xe4 .Q.d7 14 .Q.xc6 Q.xc6 1 5 1 1 .Q.h4 t Vel i m i rovic -Holmov,
§e 1 + 'tin 1 6 4)e5+ 'tif6 1 7 4)xc6 Yugoslavia-US$ R 1 966.
be 1 8 be t Vel i m i rovic - Ree, 9 ..Q.d2 .Q.xc3
Amsterdam 1 976. 1 0 be 4)xd2
83 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 0-0 4)xd 2 1 2
4 d5 4)xd2 .Q.f5 = Ljubojevic-Portisch,
N ext to the acceptance of the M ilan 1 975.
gambit by 4 ... de, this is a good 1 1 *xd2 0-0
attempt for B l ack to achieve ful ly 1 2 §b1 § b8 ! ?
equal play. 1 2 . . . b 6 1 3 0-0 was Velimirovic­
5 ed *xd5 Smej kal, Arandelovac 1 976, and
6 cd (1 7) now it was necessary to p l ay 1 3 ...
No better is 6 .Q.c2 d3 (Also .Q.f5! 14 §b5 *d7 =.

possible are 6 ... 4)f6 = or 6 ... 1 3 0-0 §e8

.Q.g4 ) 7 .Q.xd 3 4)f6 8 .Q.f4 .Q.d6
=
The game K itsis-Bereziuk, USS R
9 *e2+ .Q.e6 10 .Q.xd6 *xd6 1 1 Youth, Moscow 1 977 continued
0-0 0-0 1 2 §d1 .Q.d 5 1 3 *c2 *14 14 .Q.d3? ! ( 1 4 §fe 1 .Q.f5 1 5 .Q.d 3 = )
1 4 4)bd2 §fe8 = Vel i m irovic­ 1 4 ... .Q.g4 ! 1 5 4)g5 h6 1 6 §b5
Ornstein, Tal l i n 1 977. *d7! 1 7 4)e4 4)xd4! 1 8 4)f6+ gf
1 9 cd ( 1 9 *xh6? 4)f3+! 20 gf
ihd 3 ++) 1 9 ... 'tixg7 +.
832
6 .Q.g4
7 .Q.e2
7 4)c3 ! ? .Q.xf3 (7 ... .Q.b4 8 .Q.e2
.Q.xf3 = see below) 8 4)xd 5 .Q.xd 1
9 4)xc7+ 't;d7 1 0 4)xa8 .Q.h5 1 1 d5
.Q.b4+? ( 1 1 ... 4)d 4 1 2 .Q.d 3 .Q.b4+
1 3 .Q.d2 .Q.xd 2 1 4 'tixd2 4)e7 1 5
§ac1 §xa8 1 6 §c4 4)df5 1 7 g4
4)d6 1 8 gh 4)xc4 t) 1 2 .Q.c2 .Q.xd2
B31 6 ... 4)f6 1 3 'tJxd2 4)b4 1 5 .Q.b5+ 'tid6 1 5
B32 6 ... .Q.g4 § ac 1 4)f6 1 6 4)c7 4)xa2 1 7 �c4!
16 Scotch Gambit

± Sax-Vogt, Budapest 1 976. Yugoslavia 1 972.

7 0-0-0 {b) 1 1 ... �ge7!? 1 2 0-0 a6 1 3
The most active move. Weaker i s �d5 ? ! { 1 3 �e3 ) 0-0-0! 1 4 �xb4
=

7 . . . �f6 8 �c3. F u l l y possible i s �xb4 + Raaste-Westerinen, Finland

7 . . . �b4+ 8 �c3 �xf3 9 �xf3 1 979.
l'tc4 1 0 l'tb3 { 1 0 �e3 �xc3+ 1 1 8 �b4+
be l'txc3+ 1 2 *fl l'tc4+ 1 3 *g1 9 �c3 �xf3
�ge7 1 4 �c1 l'txa2 1 5 �a1 Y2-Y2 1 0 �xf3 l'tc4
Marshaii-Capablanca 1 926; or 1 0 1 1 �e2 ? !
�xc6+ b e 1 1 *b3 l'txb3 1 2 ab a5 1 1 l'tb3 l'txb3 1 2 ab 4lxd4 1 3
13 0-0 0-0-0 1 4 �a2 �e 7 1 Hlxb4 �xd4 �xd4 1 4 � a 7 c 6 1 5 §a8+
ab 1 6 �a4 �d5 1 7 �d2 *d 7 + *c1 16 0·0 §d8 Holmov.
=

Kuzovkin-M ik. Tseitlin, Burevestnik 11 �xc3+

Ch, Moscow 1 976} 1 0 ... l'txb3 1 2 *f1 l'te6
1 1 ab. 1 2 ... l'tb4 13 be l'txc3 1 4 �c 1
The position is approximately unclear.
equal. 13 be 4lf6
{a) 1 1 .. . �xd4 1 2 �xb7 �b8 {1 2 1 4 Q.d3
... �c2+ 1 2 *e2 �xa1 1 4 �c6+ 1 4 c4? �xd4! +
*f8 1 5 �xa8 �xb3 1 6 �e3 t 14 §he8
Vel i m irovic -Toth, N ice O L 1 974) 1 5 �g5 §d7 +
13 �xa7 �c5 1 4 �a8 �xa8 1 5 Horvat-Holmov, Zalaegerszeg 1 977.
�xa8 �e7 = Ljubojevic-Parma,
3 Scotch Game

1 e4 e5 actively, can obtain ful l y equal play.

2 4lf3 4lc6 In the first half of the twentieth
3 d4 ed century the Scotch Game was
4 4lxd4 {1 8) numbered am ong the less popul ar
openings. I n recent times, new and
interesting ideas have been found i n
18 o l d variations, and the Scotch Game
8 is more frequently seen in tourna­
ments. For Black one may recom­
mend the classical continuations 4
4 ... 4lf6 and 4 ... _g_c5, as wel l as
the less studied 4 ... \'tf6. The move
4 ... \'th4, sometimes attributed to
Stein i tz, appears to be too sharp,
although even this variation cannot
be considered refuted.
A 4 ... \'th4
The Scotch Game ( 1 e4 e5 2 4lf3 B 4 ... 4lf6
4lc6 3 d4) was given its name by C 4 ... _g_c5
the correspondence games of the D 4 . . . *f6
match Edinburgh- London ( 1 824) . The remaining continuations for
Analysis of these games was pub­ B l ack are patently weaker:
lished in 1 829 by the Edinburgh (a) 4 ... d5 5 4lxc6 be 6 ed \'txd 5
chess club. The idea of the Scotch 7 \'te2+ and 4lc3 ±
game rests in the immed iate attem-p t (b) 4 ... g6 5 4lc3 _g_g7 6 _g_e3 ;l;
by White to obtain an advantage (Three Knights)
in the centre after the exchange (c) 4 ... _g_b4+ 5 c3 Q.e7 6 _g_c4! ±
3 ... ed 4 4lxd4 (The moves 4 Bc4 A
and 4 c3 lead to the Scotch Gambit) . 4 \'th4 {19}
Neverthe less, White's position in 5 4lb5
the centre turns out to be insuf­ The most energetic continuation.
ficiently solid , and Black, playing 5 4lc3 is also possible, where 5 ...
18 Scotch Game

19 frg6 8 �f3 a6 9 �bd4 �ge7 10

.Q.d3 ±) 7 ... .Q.b4 (7 ... freS 8 �dS
w
±) 8 a3 (8 fre2 ! ? �f6 9 0-0-0 ±)
8 ... .Q.xc3+ 9 �xc3 frg6 10 .Q.d3
fr xg2 1 1 ..Q.e4 frh3 1 2 frdS i!tc6
1 3 frgS+ fr f6 ( 1 3 . . . �f6 1 4 �g1
±) 14 frg3 h6 1 S .Q.f4 d6 1 6 0-0-0
.Q.e6 1 7 .Q.xd6 ± ± Gu bat-Lcvin,
Zalaegcrszcg 1 979.
Now play d ivides :
A 1 6 �d2? !
.Q.b4 6 �bS leads to variation C A2 6 c3
below. A3 � 1 c3
Other moves are weaker: A4 6 .Q.d2
(a) S frd3 �f6 ! 6 �xc6 (6 �d2? Al
�g4! 7 g3 frf6 8 �4f3 �ceS 9 6 �d2? ! fre4+
frc3 .Q.b4! 0-1 Priogei-Dyckhoff, 7 .Q.e2 frxg2!
corres 1 930) 6 ... de 7 �d2 .Q.cS 8 .Q.f3 frh3
8 g3 frhS 9 �b3 .Q.g4 1 0 .Q.e3 �d8 9 �xc7+ *d8
1 1 frc4 .Q.xe3 + Kolisch-Steinitz, 1 0 �xa8 �f6
Paris 1 867. Black has a strong attack, for
(b) S �xc6 frxe4+ 6 lle2 de 7 0-0 exam ple : 1 1 c3 �e8+ 1 2 lle2 �eS !
.Q.e6 8 �c3 (8 �e1 frdS) Radulov­ 1 3 fra4 �d3+ 1 4 *f1 �xf2+ 1 S
Zuckerman, Vrsac 1 973 ; here Black *c2 ( 1 S *e1 fre3 ++) 1S ... �xe2
should have fol l owed up with 8 ... 1 6 frxb4 frd3+ 1 7 *b3 d6! +
frh4 9 g6 frd8 +. Breyovic -Perovic , Yugoslavia 1 978 .
(c) S �fS frxe4+ 6 �e3 �f6 7 .Q.d3 A2
freS + 6 c3 �aS
(d) S �f3 frxe4+ ! (S ... frhS = ) 6 Worse is 6 ... frxe4+ 7 �e2 �aS
.Q.e2 .Q.cS (or 6 ... fre7 7 .Q.gS �f6 8 0-0 �ge7 9 b4 a6 1 0 �d6+! cd
8 �c3 l'td8 9 .Q.xf6 frxf6 1 0 �dS 1 1 ba and White has an attacking
frd8 1 1 �d4 �cS ! +) 7 0-0 �ge7 position.
8 �c3 frg6 9 �e 1 0-0 1 0 ..Q.d3 frhS 7 �d 2 a6
+ Black supports his extra pawn in 8 �a3 .Q.b6
a satisfying position. Analysis by 9 g3 i!te7
Soviet Master Chap I in sky. 1 0 .Q.g2 �f6
s .Q.b4+ ! 1 1 0-0 0-0
The strongest line. After S ... 1 2 �dc4 Q.a7 =
*xe4+? White has several methods Radulov-Trap!, Dec in 1 976.
to obtain the advantage : 6 Q.e3 (6 A3
.Q.e2 Q.cS 7 0-0 Q.b6 8 � 1 c3 freS 6 � 1 c3 frxe4+
9 �e1 ± Veroci-Prokopovich , Novi 7 .Q.e2 .Q.xc3+
Sad 1 979) 6 ... *dB 7 � 1 c3 (7 �d2 8 �xc3
 Scotch Game 19

B be *dB 9 0-0 a6 1 0 �d4 5 �xc6

�ge7 1 1 §e1 "ttg 6 1 2 �f3 d6 1 3 (a) 5 e5? �xeS 6 -tte 2 -tte 7 7 �f5
§ b 1 §eB + Astashin-l vann i kov, -ttb 4+ B �c3 d6 +
USS R 1 97B. (b) 5 �c3 - Fou r K nights
B -ttd 4 5 be (20)
9 �d3 �b4
1 0 �b5 �xd3+ 20
1 1 -ttd 3 -ttxd 3 w
1 2 cd *dB
1 3 �f4 d6
1 4 §c1
World Champion Steinitz evaluated
this position as favouring Whi te,
but the Soviet Master Chaplinsky
has shown that after 14 ... �d4!
1 5 �xc7 §c8 Black's chances are
no worse, e.g . :
(a) 1 6 �xd6 �c6 1 7 d4 *d7 1 B 6 e5
�f4 �f6 The most frequently met and
(b) 1 6 �d5 §xc l 1 7 bel �c6 =
=

active continuation. In practice

A4 other continuations are also d is­
6 �d2 -ttx e4+ cussed and subjected to criticism :
7 �e2 *dB (a) 6 �d2 �c5 (6 ... d5 7 ed cd
B 0-0 �ge7 B �b5+ �d 7 9 llxd7+ -ttx d7 1 0
8 ... �f6 ! ? 9 � 1 c3 -tth4 1 0 g3 0-0 followed by �f3 :t; 6 ... d 6 ! ?
-tth 3 is deservi ng of attentio n , 7 �d 3 g6 B 0-0 �g7 9 �f3 0-0 =

since 1 1 �xc7? *xc7 1 2 �d5+ B i lek-Szabo, Budapest 1 954) 7 e5

�xd5 1 3 �g4 doesn 't work because
of 1 3 . . . -ttxg4! 1 4 -ttxg4 �xd2
1 5 §fd l �h6 1 6 §xd5 d6 +
9 � 1 c3 -tte 5
1 0 §el
White has a dangerous i n i tiative,
for example: 1 0 ... aS 1 1 �d3 -ttf6
-tte 7 B -tte 2 �d5 9 �b3 .Q.b6 1 0
�d 2 aS + Tartakower-Ed. Lasker,
New York 1 924.
(b) 6 .Q.d3 d5 (6 ... d 6 ! ? 7 0-0 .Q.e7
B c4 0-0 9 �c3 �d7 1 0 f4 �f6
1 1 �e3 .Q.xc3 1 2 be c5 1 3 e5
�bB 14 -ttc 2 h6 1 5 �ae 1 �b7 =

1 2 �e4 -ttx b2 1 3 §b 1 -ttx a2 1 4 lzbozchi kov-Bronstei n , USS R 1 975)

�xb4 �xb4 Sveshni kov-Barle , 7 -tte 2 (7 e5 �g4 B 0-0 �c5 9 -tte 2
Bucharest 1 976. N o w b y contin­ -tth4 1 0 h3 h5 ! 1 1 �d2 -ttg 3 1 2
uing 1 5 §xb4! ab 1 6 �g5 , White �f3 h4 1 3 .Q.d2 �h5 + J udd­
obtains the advantage ( 1 6 ... c6 Pilsbury, 1 B99 ; or 9 .Q.f4 f6! 1 0 ef
1 7 .Q.c4! ± ± or 1 6 ... §a6 1 7 § be4 0-0 + Keres) 7 ... lle7 B 0-0 0-0 =.
±) Sveshni kov. (c) 6 -ttd 4 ! ? d5 7 �c3 .Q.e7 (7 ...
B de? B -ttx d+ *xdB 9 .Q.gS f5 1 0
4 �f6 0-0-0+ *eB 1 1 .Q.a6 ± or 1 1 .Q.c4 ±)
 20 Scotch Game

8 ed 0-0! (8 ... cd 9 .Q.b5+ ±) 9 .Q.f4 8 .Q.d3 g6! ? (8 ... .Q.a6 9 0-0

(9 .Q.c4 .Q.e6! + ) 9 ... cd 1 0 0-0-0 .Q.xc4 1 0 .Q.xc4 1'lxc4 1 1 l'tg4
c5 1 1 *e5 .Q.e6 1 2 .Q.d3 c4 1 3 .Q.e2 flb6 1 2 flc3 fld5 1 3 flxd5 cd 1 4
( 1 3 Q.xc4? -tld7! + + )l'ta5 1 4 l'tc7 .Q.g5 l'tb8 1 5 §ad 1 ± Padevsky­
*xc7 1 5 Q.xc7 �c5 1 6 .Q.e5 fle4 = Bitkovsky, 1 955) 9 0-0 .11g 7 1 0
Sax-Byrne, Amsterdam 1 979. -tlc3 0-0 followed by d 6 or f6 and
B1 6 ... fld5 Black has a fully satisfactory game ­
B2 6 ... l'te7 Analysis.
B1 8 *e7
6 fld5 9 *e2 .Q.a6
6 ... -tle4 is worse due to the 1 0 l'te4 *e6
answer 7 l'tf3. 1 1 b3 .11 b 4
(a) 7 ... ith4 8 g3 -tlg5 9 l'te2 *e4 12 .Q.d 2 .11 xc3
1 0 �xg5 ! ? ( 1 0 l'txe4 -tlxe4 1 1 Q.g2 1 3 .11 xc3 d5 =

±) 1 0 ... *xh 1 1 1 -tlc3 h6 1 2 �f4 Ljubojevic-Spassky, Montreal 1 979.

*xh2 1 3 -tle4 �e7 1 4 0-0-0 0-0 I thi n k that the move 6 ... fld 5,
1 5 \'tf3 ± Gusakov-Yefi mov, RS FS R condemned in several open ing man­
1 959. uals, is fully acceptable for Black.
{b) 7 ... -tlg5 8 *g3 -tle6 9 Q.d3 d5 B2
10 0-0 g6 1 1 -tld2 f5 1 2 4Jb3 .Q.g7 6 l'te7 (21)
1 3 f4 0-0 1 4 \'tf2 §e8 1 5 .Q.e3 a5 This move was analyzed and
1 6 fld4 ± Bed narski-Prameshuber, recommended by Schiffers.
c k 9
�l � ���� ;� c4 fle6 9 0-0 *h4 21 B BAB*Il B.
1 0 fld2 ± Wade-Balanel , Bucharest W • • iII i. i
1 954.
7 c4 BtB M B
(a) 7 fld2 *h4 (7 ... *e7 ! ? deserves .
� .
B � �
� .
consideration) 8 �d3 {)b4 9 .Q.e4
± Me55ing-Forintos, Yugoslavia-
B B R. R.
B
� .
• .
• ..
•
Hungary, 1 968.
{b) 7 .Q.d3 .Q.c5 (7 ... *h4 8 0-0 .Q.c5 .e. U
.l.!. a ft.
� U 4U
�� .l.!. �
9 flbd2 o-o 1 0 fle4! .Q.e7 1 1 fle1
d6 1 2 c4 flb4 1 3 {}f6+ .Q.xf6
H�ll'lt�AB.§
14 §e4 ± Kopayev-Polyack, USS R 7 l'te2 fld5
1 946) 8 l'tg4! g6 9 .Q.h6 d6 1 0 l'ta4 8 c4
.Q.d7 1 1 0-0 de 1 2 �g7 § g8 1 3 The move 8 fld2 does not present
.Q.xe5 �d6 1 4 a e 1 ± Hromad ka­ Black with difficul ties.
Martens, corres 1 976. I recommend (a) 8 . . g6 9 flf3 .Q.g7 1 0 c4 flb6
.

that Black play 7 ... g6! ? in this 1 1 .Q.g5 "lte6 1 2 0-0-0 0-0 1 3 h4 §b8
variation followed by .Q.g7. 1 4 *c2 d6 1 5 fld4 l'te8 1 6 ed cd
7 flb6 1 7 .Q.f4 c5 and Black has an attack .
8 flc3 Troianescu-Robatsch, Varna 1 957.

(b) 8 . . . {)f4 9 *e4 {)g6 1 0 {)f3
( 1 0 f4 dS) dS =
(c) 8 ... {)b4 9 {)f3 �a6 1 0 c4 cS !
= compare below.
B21 8 ... {)b6
B22 8 ... �a6
B2 1
8 {)b6
8 . . *b4+ 9 {)d2 {)f4 1 0 *e4
. 22
{)e6 1 1 �e2 { 1 1 f4? ! �b7 1 2 fS
cS 1 3 *&4 {)d4 1 4 �d3 0-0-0 1 S
0-0 f6 ! with good play for B l ack
Boikovic-Baretic , Novi Sad 1 97S)
1 1 ....Q.b7 1 2 a3 *b6 13 0-0 cS
1 4 *e3 �e7 1 S f4 {)d4 1 6 �d3:t
Estrin-Zinser, Moscow 1 968.
9 {)d2
(a) 9 {)c3 �a6 1 0 *e4 *e6 =
{b) 9 b3 *e6 1 0 �b2 �e7 1 1
g3 0-0 1 2 �g2 f6 1 3 ef *xe2+
1 4 ®xe2 �f6 = Fatal ibekova­
Muslimova, USS R 1 979.
(c) 9 �f4 *b4+ (9 . . . dS? 10 ed cd
1 1 {)c3 �d 7 1 2 0-0-0 ±) 1 0 {)d 2
*xb2! ( 1 0 ... �a6 1 1 *e4 *xb2
1 2 §b 1 *xa2 1 3 �e2 {)a4 14 e6!
± van der Wiei-MacCarthy, Gron­
ingen 1 979) 1 1 §b 1 *d4! with an
extra pawn and favourable position
for Black - Analysis.
9 *e6
9 . . . Q.b7 1 0 b3 0-0-0 1 1 �b2
*e6 1 2 0-0-0 �e7 1 3 f4 §he8
1 4 {)f3:t Padevski-Holmov, D resden
1 9S8.
10 b3 �e7
1 1 �b2
1 1 g3 dS ( 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2 �g2 f6 =)
1 2 cd cd 1 3 �g2 0-0 1 4 0-0 aS =
11 0-0
1 2 *e4 dS
1 3 ed ed
14 �d3 aS!
Scotch Game 27
GligoriC's suggestion. Worse is 1 4 ...
dS 1S cd cd 1 6 *xc6 ;!; Bednarski­
Giigoric , Havana 1 967.
1 S 0-0 *xe4
1 6 �xe4 dS =
822
8 �a6 (22)
w
9 {)d2
(a) 9 f4? *b4+ 10 ®d 1 �cS +
Hadrin-Schiffers, corres 1 894.
(b) 9 h4? ! 0-0-0 1 0 �gS f6 1 1 ef
*b4+ 1 2 *d2 §e8+ 1 3 ®d 1 {)xf6
1 4 �xf6 gf 1 S *xb4 �xb4 +
Batni kov-Kuznetsov, USS R 1 968.
(c) 9 b3 f6 (In tournament praxis
9 ... §b8 is also met, as wel l as
9 ... 0-0-0 and 9 ... *h4. I n all of
these lines Black gets a good game)
1 0 �b2 {)f4 1 1 ef {)d3+ 1 2 ®d2
*xe2+ 1 3 �xe2 {)xb2 14 §e1
�b4+ 1 S {)c3 0-0! + Ljubojevic­
l vkov, Bugojno 1 978.
(d) 9 *e4 ! ? {)f6 1 0 *e2 {)dS
leads to a repetition of moves.
Worse for B l ack is 9 ... {)b6, after
which white does not p l ay 1 0 �d3
.bc4! 1 1 .Q.xc4 dS =, but 1 0 {)c3
with the better chances. For
example 1 0 ... fS 1 1 *xfS Q.xc4
1 2 .Q.xc4 {)xc4 1 3 0-0 g6 1 4 *e4
*e6 Sveshni kov-1 . Zaitsev, USSR
22 Scotch Game
1 975 and now 1 5 b3 ! 4lb6 ( 1 5 ...
4lxe5 16 Af4 ± ; 15 ... Ab4 1 6 4la4
±) 1 6 Ab2; or 1 0 ... 0-0-0 1 1 c5 !
Axf1 1 2 cb Q.a6 1 3 be '11 x c7 1 4
Af4 -lte6 1 5 0-0-0 ;l; Randwii r­
Raissa, 1 96 1 .
9 f6 !
The best continuation. Black
immediately attacks the pawn at
e5, which cramps his position.
Below we examine other lines for
Black, from which 9 ... g6 ! ? (d)
deserves consideration.
(a) 9 ... 4lb6 1 0 b3 :
(a1 ) 10 .. . d 5 1 1 e d c d 1 2 Ab2 f6
1 3 0-0-0 -ltxe2 1 4 be2 '31 fl 1 5
�he1 ;l; Schmidt-Radovich, 1 964.
(a2) 10 ... Ab7 1 1 Q.b2 0-0-0 1 2
0-0-0 "ite6 1 3 g3 h5 1 4 h4 '31b8
1 5 Ah3 ± Pol ihroni ade-Eretova,
Oberhausen 1 966.
(a3) 1 0 .. : g6 1 1 Q.b2 Ag7 1 2 0-0-0
0-0-0 1 3 f4 d5 ( 1 3 ... �he8 1 4 -ltf2
d6 1 5 c5! _g_xfl 1 6 -ltxfl de 1 7
"ita6+ '31b8 1 8 4lc4 ! ± Pinkas­
Pioch, Poland 1 973) 1 4 -lte3 de
1 5 _g_xc4 _g_xc4 1 6 4lxc4 4lxc4 1 7
be ± Harding-Zhivodov, corres
1 978.
(b) 9 ... 4lf4 1 0 -lte4 4lg6 1 1 f4
0-0-0:
(b 1 ) 1 2 b3 ( 1 2 _g_e2? f6 1 3 4lf3 fe
1 4 4lg5 ! �e8 1 5 f5 4lf4 1 6 Axf4
ef 1 7 "itxe7 Axe7 1 8 4lf3Af6++
Pitksaar-Vistanetskis, USS R 1 955)
1 2 ... f6 13 Q.b2 fe ( 13 ... �e8 1 4
0-0-0 fe 1 5 f5 ! 4lf4 1 6 4lf3 d6
1 7 c 5 ! Ab7 18 "ita4 ± Kozlov­
Suleimanov, USS R 1 96,9) 1 4 fe
-ltg5 1 5 0-0-0 �e8 1 6 h4 *f4
1 7 "itxf4 4lxf4 1 8 g3 4lh5 1 9 4le4
± Chumak-Gostkhorzhevich, Y:z F
Burevestni k Ch, jurmala 1 976.
(b2) 1 2 g3 d 5 13 cd Q.xf1 14 d6
-ltd7 1 5 de '31xc7 1 6 '11 x f1 -lth3+
1 7 '31e2 �d5 1 8 4lb3 *g4 1 9 -ltf3
±
(c) 9 ... 4lb4 1 0 4lf3 :
(c 1 ) 1 0 .. . d 5 ? 1 1 a3 ! (worse i s 1 1
b3? de 1 2 be 0-0-0 13 -lte4 -ltd7
1 4 _g_d2 Q.c5 1 5 _g_e2 f5 1 6 'itb1
4ld3+ + Novi tsky-Shcrcshcvsky,
V2F USS R Army Ch 1 977) 1 1 .. .
_g_xc4 1 2 -ltd 1 Q.xf1 13 '31xf1 4la6
1 4 *a4 4lb8 1 5 .Q.g5 ! (after 1 5 _g_e3
'itd 7 1 6 e6 fe 1 7 4le5 'itd8 1 8 *g4
"itf6 1 9 �e 1 h5 20 *g3 Q.d6 Black
has succeeded in defending, and has
consolidated his material advantage.
Susic-Fuderer, Yugoslavia 1 962)
Now White has a decisive attack,
i.e . 1 5 ... 'ite6 ( 1 5 ... "itd7 16 e6! ± )
1 6 �c1 h 6 1 7 _g_h4 _g_e7 1 8 4ld4
"itd7 20 4lxe6 ! g5 21 §e 1 1 -0
Tatai-Adorjan, Amsterdam 1 977.
(c2) 10 . .. c5 ! ? 1 1 a3 4lc6 1 2 _g_d2
"ite6 13 _g_c3 _g_e 7 1 4 0-0-0 f6 1 5
ef "itxe2 1 6 f7+ '31xf7 1 7 _g_e2 ;l;
Barczay-Forintos, Hungary 1 964 .
(d) 9 ... g6 1 0 b3 ( 1 0 4lf3 ? ! 'itb4+ !
+) 1 0 .. . _g_g7 1 1 _g_ b 2 0-0 1 2 0-0-0
�ab8 (Worse is 1 2 ... c5 1 3 �e4 !
4lb4 1 4 4lf6+ ± Zhuravlyev­
Shaposhni kov, corres 1 971 ) 1 3 "ite4
4lb6 1 4 f4 §feB 1 5 -ltc2 d 5 !
with good play for Black. Hennings­
Savon , Harrachov 1 967.
1 0 ef
1 0 "ite4 4lb6 1 1 ef 'itxe4+ 1 2
4lxe4 _g_xc4 1 3 _g_xc4 4lxc4 1 4 b3
4ld6 = Sax-lvkov, N ovi Sad 1 976.
10 �xf6
1 1 b3
The game Sveshni kov-Tarjan ,
Hastings 1 977/78 continued 1 1 . ..
c5 ? ! 1 2 _g_b2 _g_b7 1 3 f3 '31fl 1 4

0-0-0ttxe2 1 S Axe2 ;!; Black cou ld,
in our opinion, p lay better, namely
1 1 ...ttxc2+! 12 Axe2 Ab4 1 3 0-0
0-0 =.
c (a4) 6 f4 ! ? ttxc6 7 <Dc3 <Df6 8
4 .llc S (23}
Next to 4 ... <Df6 the most com­
mon move.
C1 S Ae3
C2 S <Db3
C1
5 Ae3
We exam ine other continuations,
where p raxis has shown that White
can count on no more than equal
play.
{a) 5 <Dxc6 itf6 {Also possible is
S ... be! ? Keres) and now:
{a 1 ) 6 ttd2ttxc6 7 .lld 3<Df6 8 0-0
0-0 9 itf4 b6 ! ? 1 0 <Dc3 .ll b 7 1 1
.lld 2 lhe8 1 2 §ae 1 .lld 4 1 3ttg3
§e6 ! + Wade-Littlewood, Rhyl
1 969.
{a2) 6 tte2 be 7 <Dd2 {7 <Dc3 aS
and then lla6 =) 7 ... <De7 8 tt f3
ttxf3 9 <Dxf3 0-0 1 0 Ad3 d6 1 1
0-0 <Dg6 1 2 h3 §e8 = Kosi kov­
Fedorov, USS R 1 977.
{a3) 6 ttf3 ttxf3 7 gf de {7 ... be
8 lle3 Nei -Vitolins, USS R 1 976
and now 8 ... Ae7 =) 8 .lle 3 Ad6 9
Scotch Game 23
f4 f5 1 0 eS .llb 4+ 1 1 c3 AaS 1 2
§g1 g6 1 3 <Dd2 Ae6 1 4 .llc4 AdS
1 5 AxdS cd = S in k ler-M ikhalchishi n ,
Mexico 1 978.
AbS tte6 9tte2 0-0 1 0 eS <DdS 1 1
<De4 .ll e 7 1 2 0-0 fS ! 1 3 ef<Dxf6
1 4 <Dxf6+ Larsen-Bri n k Cl aussen ,
Copenhagen 1 979, and now Black
had to play 14 ... ttxf6 ! ? For
example 1 S .lld 2 = or 1 S ttc4+ d S !
1 6 ttxdS+ Ae6 with sufficient
compensation for the sacri ficed
material. Bad is 1 6 ttxc7?? Ad8!
1 7ttc3ttb6+ winning - Larsen.
{b) 5 <Df5 and now:
{b 1) 5 ... d5 6 <Dxg7+ *f8 7 <Dh5
(7 ttxdS ttxd S 8 ed <Db4 + or
7 <DfS AxfS 8 eftth4 +) 7 ...tth4
8 <Dg3 <Df6 9 Ae2 {9 ed <Dxg4 + )
9 ... <DeS 1 0 h3 §g8 + Steinitz.
The variation 6 ed AxfS 7 tte2+!
{7 de?? .ll xf2+ + + ) 7 ... <Dge7 {7 ...
<Dce7 8ttbS+ c6! 9tt xcStt xdS =)
8 de be 9ttc4 is of interest (Analy­
sis) .
{b2) 5 ... g6? ! 6 <De3 <Df6 7 <Dc3 d6
{7 ... 0-0 8 .lld 3 §e8 9 0-0 <DeS
1 0 *h1 <Dxd 3 1 1 cd llf8 1 2 f4 d6
1 3 tt f3 Ag7 1 4 .lld 2<Dd7 1 S §ad 1
± Savon-lvkov, Wijk aan Zee 1 972)
8 Ad3 Ae6 9 0-0 <DeS 1 0 .lle 2
ttd7 1 1 *h 1 <Deg4 1 2 <DedS c6
1 3 b4! cd 1 4 be <Dxe4 1 S -ltd4!
± l vanovic -Piachetka, N alechuv
1 979.
{b3) S ...tt f6 6 <Dc3 <Dge7 7 <De3
0-0 8 g3 <DeS 9 f4<DSg6 1 0 .llg 2
{1 0 eS tte6 1 1 .llg 2 d6 or 1 1 .llc4
gives Black a good game) 1 0 ... c6
1 1 0-0 d S ! 1 2 *h 1 ! { 1 2 eS?<DxeS!
1 3 fe ttxeS 1 4 §e1 <DfS + ) 1 2 ...
.llx e3 1 3 .llx e3 de 14 ttc1 .llfS =
 24 Scotch Game

Lj ubojevic -Karpov, Montreal 1 979. This move, in connection with

5 l1- f6 the development of the Bishop on
5 ... .Q.b6 6 <tlc3 d 6 7 .Q.e2 g2, presents Black with some
(7 l1-d2 <tlf6 8 f3 0-0 9 0-0-0 §e8 d ifficulties, and is the most logical
= ) 7 ... <tlf6 8 0-0 0-0 9 <tlxc6 be move. Other continuations for
10 llg5l1-e7 1 1 �h 1 h 6 1 2 .Q.h4 g5 White are also met:
1 3 .Q.g3 <tlxe4 1 4 <tlxe4 l1-xe4 1 5 {a) 7 f4 l1-g6 {7 ... .Q.xd4 8 cd d5 +
f4! ± ± Klovan- Razuvayev, USSR Rovner-Borisenko, USS R 1953)
1 974. 8 l1-f3 ctlxd4 9 cd llb4+ 10 ctlc3
6 c3 d5 11 e5 l1-c2 1 2 llc 1 <tlf5 +
The sharp continuation 6 <tlb4 Steinitz
leads to an advantage for Black {b) 7 <tld2 .Q.xd4 8 cd <tlxd4 9 e5
after 6 ... .Q.xe3 7 fe *h4+: 8 g3 l1-b6 10 l1-a4 l1-b4! + Keres
l1- xe4 9 ctlxc7+ �d8 1 0 ctlxa8 (c) 7 l1-d2 d 5 ! {7 ... 0-0 8 f4 !)
l1-xh 1 1 1 l1-d 6 ctlf6 1 2 ctld 2 ctle8 8 <tlb5 .Q.xe3 9 l1-xe3 (9 fe 0-0 10
1 3 l1- f4 l1-d5 + Bronstein 's sugges­ ctlxc7 de 1 1 <tlxa8 §d8 1 2 l1-c2
tion of 7 ... l1-e5 instead of 7 ... ctld5 with a strong attack for
l1-h4+ is less favourable for Black : B l ack. Steinitz) 9 ... 0-0 10 ctlxc7
7 ... l1-e5 8 ctld2 �d8 9 ctlc3 ctlf6 §b8 1 1 <tld2 { 1 1 <tlxd5 ctlxd5 1 2
1 0 l1- f3 d6 1 1 h3 .Q.e6 1 2 0-0-0 ed ctlb4! 1 3 cb "tt x b2 1 4 *c3
§e8 1 3 .Q.b5 a6 1 4 .Q.xc6 be 1 5 §e8+ 1 5 �d 1 "ttxf2 +) 1 1 ... de
l1- f4 .Q.d7 1 6 l1-h4 l1-h5 Lipman­ 1 2 ctlxe4 "tte5
= 1 3 ctlb5 <tld 5++
Averbakh, USS R 1 978. {d) 7 .Q.e2 d5 8 0-0 0-0 9 <tlxc6
6 <tlge7 "ttx c6 Euwe
Weaker is 6 ... d6 7 g3! {7 .Q.b5 (e) 7 .Q.b5 0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 <tlxc6
.Q.d 7 8 0-0 <tlge7 9 <tlxc6 be 10 be 10 .Q.xb5 cb 1 1 .Q.d4 "ttg6 =

.Q.xc5 cb! = Kan-Fiohr, USSR Kupreichik-Romanishin, USS R

1 939) 7 ... ctlge7 8 .Q.g2 !. This 1 976
variation is examined below in con­ {f) 7 .Q.c4 ctle5 8 .Q.e2 d 5 :
junction with Black's seventh move. (fl ) 9 <tld2 "ttg 6 1 0 0-0 Bh3 1 1
7 g3 (2 4) .Q.f3 0-0-0 1 2 <tlf5 de 1 3 <tlxe7+
.Q.xe7 1 4 llxe4 f5. 15 Q.f3 §d3 +
Baturinsky-Smyslov, Moscow Ch
24 1 938
8 { f2) 9 f4 ctlg4 10 .Q.xg4 "tt h 4+ 1 1
.Q.f2 "ttx g4 1 2 "ttx g4 .Q.xg4 1 3 <tld2
0-0-0 + Skua-Kiovan , USS R 1965 .
{f3) 9 0-0 "ttg 6! (9 ... de 10 <tld2
.Q.b6 1 1 ctlxe4 "ttg 6 1 2 <tlg5 <tld5
1 3 .Q.b5+ *e7 14 ctlf5 ± Saidman­
B isguier, USA 1 95 7/58) 10 *h 1
{ 10 ed .Q.h3 1 1 .Q.f3 0-0-0 + B ilguer;
1 0 .Q.f4 "ttx e4 1 1 .Q.g3 Q.xd4 1 2

�d2 ltg6 1 3 cd �5c6 + Sokolsky)
and now should not have pl ayed
1 0 ... de? 1 1 �bS Q.b6 1 2 llxb6
l'txb6 1 3 l'td4 ± G usakov-Stefan ,
corres 1 976, but rather 1 0 . . . 0-0 !
i .e . 1 1 �fS .11. xf5 1 2 .11. xc5 ( 1 2 ef
l'tb6+ + ) 1 2 ... .11. x e4 1 3 f3 _g_c2 !
1 4 l'td2 §fe8 + A nalysis.
(g) 7 �c2. B l ack has several good
continuations, at the very least
equal izing the game.
(g 1 ) 7 ... _g_b6 8 �ba3 0-0 9 �bS !
;!; )
(g2) 7 ... b6 8 .Q.d 3 (8 �d 2 ltg6
9 .11. x c5 be 1 0 �e3 § b8 + B l ack­
burn-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1 9 1 4)
8 ... �e5 9 AxeS be 1 0 0-0 .Q.b 7
1 1 �e3 l'tg6 1 2 f3 0-0 1 3 Q.c2
.11. a6 1 4 §e 1 l'tg5 1 5 �a3 �7g6
+ Kralin-Piisetsky, Trud Team Ch,
USS R 1 979.
(g3) 7 ... d6 8 �d2 (8 AxeS de 9
�e3 0-0 1 0 Q.e2 §d8 1 1 l'tc2
lle6 Stolz-Bronstein , Stockholm
= Q.e6 1 3 �f4 §fe8 14 'ith2 �4e5
1 948) 8 ... l'tg6 9 .11. x c5 de 1 0 f4
f5 = Bastrikov-Borisen ko, USS R
1 958.
(g4) 7 ... .11.x e3 8 �xe3 l'te5 9 �d2
(9-c'td 3 f5 1 0 ef d5 1 1 1le2 Q.xf5 =
Tartakower-j ohner, 1 922; 9 l'tf3
0-0 1 0 .Q.c4 d6 1 1 �d2 lle6 1 2
0-0 l'tg5 1 3 l'te2 �g6 1 4 g3 Q.h3 =
Tartakower-Tarrasch , Vienna 1 922)
9 ... d S ! 1 0 ed �xdS 1 1 �c4 �xe3
1 2 �xe3 .11.e6 1 3 l'ta4 0-0 1 4 .llc4
§ad8 1 5 0-0 l'txe4. Black's position
is p referable.
7 d5!
T h i s active move is the best
answer to 7 g3. I n the event of less
active p l ay B l ack extricates h i mself
from difficulties.
(a) 7 ... �xd4? 8 cd Q.b4+ 9 �c3
Scotch Game 25
0-0 1 0 .Q.g2 l'ta6 1 1 l'tb 3 .Q.a5
1 2 dS �g6 1 3 Q.d4 §e8 1 4 0-0-0
± Dubinsky-Grombchevsky, USS R
1 974.
(b) 7 ... b6 8 .Q.g2 Q.a6 (8 ... Q.b7
9 0-0 0-0-0 1 0 l'ta4 ! 'itb8 1 1 �bd2
�eS 12 h3 dS 13 f4 �5c6 14 e5
ltg6 15 §f3 ± Svesh nikov-Koz i rev,
USS R 1 975) 9 f4 0-0 1 0 l'td2
.11. x d4 1 1 llxd4 l'te6 1 2 'itf2 § ad8
13 §e1 l'th6 14 'itg1 dS 15 e5 ±
Petrien ko-lvanov, USS R 1 974.
(c) 7 ... d6 8 Q.g2 and now:
(c 1 ) 8 ... .Q.d7 9 0-0 �eS 1 0 h3
�c4 1 1 Q.c1 0-0 1 2 b3 �b6 1 3
�f3 ;!; Kupreichi k-Smyslov, USS R
1 974.
(c2) 8 ... �e8 9 h 3 Q.d7 1 0 -c'te2
g5 1 1 �d2 �7g6 Honfi-Knezevic,
1 976 and now 1 2 �c2! .11. x e3 1 3
�xe3 ±
(c3) 8 .. 0-0 9 0-0 �eS 1 0 �c2 ! ?
.
( 1 0 h3 �c4 1 1 Q.c 1 �c6 1 2 �e2
15 �d2 l'te7 1 6 �xe6 l'txe6 1 7
�b3 ;!; Klovan-Balashov, USS R
1 975) 1 0 ... Q.b6 1 1 �d2 l'tg6 ( 1 1
... �d3? 1 2 �c4 ±) 1 2 Q.xb6 ab
1 3 �e3 �g4 1 4 l'te2 �xe3 1 5
l'txe3 ;!; Honfi-Lengeyl , Hungary
1 979.
(d) 7 . 0.{) 8 .Q.g2 d 5 ! ? 9 ed �xd4
..
10 cd .Q.b6 1 1 �c3 �f5 1 2 0-0
.Q.xd4 � xd4 = Veroci-Baumstark,
Zalaegszerg 1 979 .
8 .Q.g2
C1 1 8 ... de
C1 2 8 ... .Q.xd4
Both of these moves give Black
ful l y equal play.
Worse is 8 ... �xd4? 9 cd .Q.b4+
Zhuravlyev-Romanishin, USSR 1974
because of 1 0 'itfl ! de 1 1 l'ta4+
 26 Scotch Game

<Dc6 1 2 a3 ± , but 8 ... 0-0 is This is better than 1 1 ... ttg6

possible, carrying the game into 1 2 <Dc3 ! 0-0 (or 1 2 ... .ll d 3 1 3 dS
Veroci -Bau mstark by transposition <DeS tta4+ c6 1 S 0-0-0 with the
of moves. threat ofttd4 ± ) 13 0-0<Db4 ( 1 3 ...
C1 1 § fd8 1 4 tta4 .llc 2 1 S tta3 <DfS
8 de 1 6 oDdS ! ± Honfi-Ki uger, Hungary
9 <DbS 1 976} 1 4 ttb3! aS 1 S a3 <Dc2 1 6
9 <Dd2 <Dxd4 1 0 cd .ll b6 1 1 §ac1 §ab8 1 7 <De2 ! ± Tompa­
<Dxe4 ttg6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 <DeS c6 ; Lu kacs, Budapest 1 976.
4 ttb3 hS + Lisik-Kislov, USSR 1 2 ... 0-0-0! 1 3 dS? 4Jxd5 +
1 9?0. Ligterink-Korchnoi, Dutch Ch
9 .llx e3 1 977 ; 1 3 'ltb3 ooj=. 1 2 ... 0-0 ! ?
9 ... .lld 6? 1 0<Dd2 .lle S 1 1 <Dxe4 1 3 ttb3 <DfS ! gives Black good
ttg6 1 2 0-0 a6 1 3 <Dd4 0-0 1 4 prospects but 1 3dS? again all ows
<Dxc6 <Dxc6 1 S <DeS .lld 6 1 6tta4 1 3 ... {)xd S .
ithS 1 7 {)xb7 ± Du binsky-Ivanov, after 1 3 ...<DfS ! .
USSR 1 974. 1 3 .llg 2 ttc4
1 0 <Dxc7+ MB 1 4 §c1 tta6
1 1 0-0 1 5 tte2 ttxe2+
Or 1 1 fe H b8 1 2 {)dS ttgS 1 3 1 6 'Ot>xe2 0-0-0
{)f4 ttcS with chances for both 1 7 §hd1 oDdS =
sides Klovan-Romanishin, USSR Gheorgh iu -Romanish i n , Len ingrad
Ch 1 st L 1 974. I Z 1 977.
11 § b8 C2
1 2 fe tteS 5 <Db3 (25)
1 3 ttb3 fS Th is move has been used more
14 <DbS frequently than 5 .lle 3 in recent
Sveshni kov-Gel ler, Sochi 1 976. times.
In th is position with approximately
equal chances the two players 25
agreed to a draw. 8
C1 2
8 .llx d4
9 cd de
1 0 <Dc3 .llfS
Also possible is 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1
<Dxe4 ttg6 1 2 0-0 .lle6 (worse is
1 2 ... oDdS? 1 3 <Dc3 <Dxc3 1 4
be .llf S 1 S .llf4 ± Zhuravlyev­
Ostrovsky, Y2F Rostov-on-Don
RSFS R Ch , 1 97S} 1 3 {)cS .lld S = 5 .llb 6
Kupreichik-Parma, Dortmund 1 975. The most natural and best
1 1 {)xe4 .llx e4! continuation.

After S . . . .Q.bS+ and S ... .Q.e 7
White gets a small positional edge.
(a) S ... .Q.b4+ 6 c3 (6 .Q.d2 aS ! ?
= Ku preichik-Romanish i n , USS R
1 974) 6 . . -'le7 and now:
. 6 a4
(a1 ) 7 f4 d6 8 .Q.d3 dS 9 eS h S !
1 0 �d4 �xd4 1 1 c d �h6! 1 2 .Q.e3
.Q.fS=.
(a2) 7 -'lc4 �f6 8 0-0 0-0 9 §c1
d6 1 0 .Q.gS �g4 1 1 -'lxc7 -fkxe7
= Zelevinsky -Bonch-Osmolovsky,
USS R 1 962.
(a3) 7 �d4 .Q.f6 8 g3 �gc7 9 .Q.g2
0-0 1 0 0-0 d6 1 1 �a3 .Q.d7 1 2 h3
�xd4 1 3 cd cS ! Radu lov-Keres,
=
Budapest 1 970.
(a4) 7 g3 ! ? d6 8 .Q.g2 �f6 9 0-0
.Q.g4 1 0 f3 .Q.e6 1 1 �d4 �xd4
1 2 cd -fkd7 1 3 -fkc2 c6 1 4 �c3
-'lh3 1 S f4 ;!; Klyavins-Borisenko,
USS R 1 9S4.
(b) S ... .Q.c7
( b 1 ) 6 g3 �f6 7 Q.g2 0-0 8 0-0 §c8
9 h3 aS 1 0 a4 .Q.b4 1 1 c3 .Q.f8
1 2 �1 d2 d6 1 3 �d4 ;!; Bastrikov­
Bann ik, USS R 1 9S4.
(b2) 6 c4 (This position may also
arise after S ... .Q.b4+ 6 c3 .Q.e7
7 c4) 6 . �f6 7 �c3 0-0 9 .Q.e2
. .
§e8 9 f3 (9 0-0 aS ! ? 1 0 a4 d6
1 1 .Q.e3 �d7 1 2 �bS .Q.f6 1 3 -fkc2
�b4 1 4 -fkd2 b6 1 S §ad1 .Q.b7
16 f3 �cS =Lj ubojevic -G iigoric ,
N i ksic 1 978) 9 ... aS l vanovic­
Pctrosian , Tal l in 1 979. Now accord­
ing to Petrosian, Wh i te shou l d have
played 1 0 0-0 a4 1 1 �d4 .Q.cS
1 2 .Q.e3 ± .
C2 1 6 a4
C22 6 �c3
Wh i te can play 6 c4 but it d oes
not offer h i m any advantage, i.e.
6 ... d6 7 �c3 -fkh4 8 g3 -fkf6
Scotch Game 27
9 cS de 1 0 .Q.e3 �ge7 1 1 �xeS
0-0 1 2 .Q.g2 �eS = Estrin-Furman,
USSR 1 9SO.
C21
a6
The most reasonable answer.
Less favourable for Black are the
continuations 6 . . . -fkh4 and 6 ...
�f6, as tournament practice has
shown. The moves 6 ... -firf6 and
6 ... aS are also fu lly acceptable.
(a) 6 ... -fkh4 7 -fke2
(a1 ) 7 ... �f6 ? 8 aS �d4 (8 ... .Q.d4
9 § a4! -'leS 1 0 g3 -fkg4 1 1 f4
.Q.d6 1 2 eS ± ± Estrin-Berezi n ,
U S S R 1 9S3) 9 �xd4 �xd4 1 0 §a4
-'lcS ( 1 0 ... cS 1 1 eS �dS 1 2 §a3!
d6 1 3 g3 -fire7 14 .Q.g2 �c 7 1 S ed
±± lvashin-Bannik, USSR 1 9S 1 )
1 1 §c4! d6 1 2 eS �g4 1 3 ed+
.Q.e6 1 4 §xeS ± ± Troianescu­
Sandor, Bucharest 1 9S4.
(a2) 7 ... aS 8 �c3 �b4 (8 ... �ge7
9 g3 -fkf6 1 0 -'lg2 d6 1 1 0-0 0-0
1 2 �h 1 -fkg6 1 3 �bS fS 1 4 .Q.e3 fe
1 S -'lxb6 cb 1 6 .Q.xe4 ± Naroditsky­
Panov, USSR 1 962) 9 g3 -fkf6
1 0 �d1 d6 1 1 c3 �c6 1 2 .Q.e3
-'lxe3 1 3 �xe3 �ge 7 1 4 .Q.g2 0-0
1 S 0-0 b6 1 6 -fkc2 .Q.a6 1 7 §fd1
§ad8 1 8 �d4 ;!; Lazarev i c -N i kolai,
Yugoslavia-Ru mania 1 964.
(a3) 7 ... d6 8 a4 .Q.g4 9 -fkd2 -'lcS
1 0 .Q.bS �e7 1 1 �xeS de 1 2 0-0
0-0 1 3 c3 �e5 1 4 f3 .Q.e6 1 5
�a3 §fd8 1 6 -fkf4 ;!; Damjanovic­
Kolarov, 1 964.
(b) 6 ... �f6 7 a5 (The continuation
7 �c3 a6 is considered below in the
variation 6 . . a6 7 �c3 �f6) 7 ...
.
�xa5 :
(b 1 ) 8 �xa5 �xe4 9 .Q.d3 'tth 4 ) 9 .
. .
�xd2 1 0 -fke2+ -fke7 1 1 -fkxe7+
 28 Scotch Game

<3Jxe7 1 2 �fl �xd3+ 1 3 cd ± (d2) 7 ... tt f6 8 tte2 �ge7 (8 ...

I evaluate this position as more
favourable for Wh ite ; it is important
to note, however, that several theo­
retical manuals give preference to
Black's position) 1 0 tte2 .Q.xf2+
(After 1 0 ... ttxf2+ 1 1 ttxf2
�xf2 1 2 �f1 �xd3+ 1 3 cd :t The
�b4 9 �b5 and then c3 :t) 9 �c3
(9 �d5 �xd5 1 0 ed �e7 1 1 h4 h6
1 2 g3 = ) 1 0 ... �b4 10 0-0-0 ( 1 0
.Q.xb6ttxb6 1 1 0-0-0 0-0 1 2 g 3 d6
1 3 Q.g2 Benko-Smyslov, Amster­
d am 1 964, and now 1 3 ... �ec6 1 4
f4 �c8 ) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 g 3 Q.xe3+
=

position has arisen which was 12 ttxe3 d6 1 3 Q.g2 �e6 14 �d4

mentioned in the remarks to
Black's 9th move) 1 1 <�Jfl f5 1 2
�d2 0-0 1 3 �f3 tte7 Beni-B i atny,
Luhacovice 1 969. Here White should
have played 1 4 .Q.xe4 fe 1 5 <3Jxf2
�ec6 1 4 f4 ;!; J ohansson-j ansson,
corres 1 969.
(d3) 7 ... d6 8 �d5 Q.a7 8 .llb 5
�d7 10 0-0 �e5 1 1 Q.xd 7+ttxd7
1 2 Q.e3 .Q.xe3 Letelier-Bronstein,
=

tth4+ 1 6 g3 ef 1 7 gh fe+ 1 8 Mar del Plata 1 960.

<3Jxe2 ± Keres.
(b2) 8 �xa5 �xa5+ 9 .{)xa5 �xe4
1 0 ttd4 ( 1 0 .Q.d3 followed by 0-0
deserves consideration) 1 0 ... 0-0
1 1 .Q.e3 d5 1 2 �b3 �e8 unclear
Fichti-B iatny, Prague 1 963.
7 �c3 (26)
The moves 7 �e2 and 7 g3 lead
to approximately equal play. For
example : 7 .Q.e2 tt f6 8 0-0 �ge7
9 <3Jh 1 d6 1 0 f4 .Q.e6 1 1 a5 Q.a7
1 2 c3 0-0-0 1 3 �d2 h6 Bastri kov­
=

(c) 6 ...tt f6 7tte2 Novotelnov, USS R 1 95 1 ; or 7 g3

(c1 ) 7 ... �d4 8 �xd4 Q.xd4 9 c3 d6 8 .llg 2 .lle6 9 a5 .Q.a7 1 0 �a4
�c5 1 0 e5 ttc6 1 1 �d2 Q.e7 1 2 �f6 = .
�f3 :t Arulayd-Barcza, Tallinn 1969.
(c2) 7 ... d6 8 a5 �d4 9 �xd4 26
.Q.xd4 Adamski-Balogh , Lubl i n 1 967 8
and now 1 0 c3 �e5 1 1 g3 :t .
(c3) 7 . . . �ge7 8 a 5 �d4 9 �xd4
.ll x d4 1 0 c3 �c5 ! 1 0 .. . .lle 5
1 1 g3 c6 1 2 .llg 2 0-0 1 3 0-0 d5
14 �d2 Q.c7 1 5 f4 :t Boikovic­
Lukin, Yugoslavia-USS R 1 965) 1 1
g3 ( 1 1 e5 ttc6 1 2 �d2 a6 1 3 �e4
.lla 7 14 g3 0-0 1 5 Q.g2 ttb5 =

Damjanovic-Barcza, Tal lin 1 969)

1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 .llg 2 a6 ( 1 2 ... d6 1 3 C2 1 1 7 ...tt f6
b4 .llx b4 1 4 e5 ±) 1 3 0-0 d6 =. C2 1 2 7 ... �ge7
(d) 6 ... a5 7 �c3: C2 1 3 7 ... d6
(d 1 ) 7 ... �ge7 8 .llg 5 f6 9 .Q.h4 0-0 C2 1 4 7 ... �f6
1 0 ttd2 d6 1 1 0-0-0 .Q.e6 Radu lov­ C2 1 1
Westerinen, Raach 1 969 and now 7 tt f6
1 2 �d5 :t Keres. 8 tte2 �ge7

9 .rJdS
9 aS (9 ..Q.e3 Q.xe3 10 ttxe3
0-0 1 1 Q.e2 d6 ) 9 ... .rJd4 (9 ...
= ttxc4 1 9 §xd7+ ..Q.xd 7 20 ttxc4
..Q.a7 10 ..Q.e3 ..Q.xe3 1 1 ltxe3 0-0
1 2 Q.d3 d6 1 3 0-0 ..Q.e6 Musil­
= ..Q.d2 ttxd S 1 S 0-0-0 tte6 1 6 ttf3
Danner, Busum 1 968) 1 0 eS ltg6
1 1 .rJxd4 llxd4 1 2 §a4 llxc3+
1 3 be 0-0 + Ncishtadt-Golubyev,
USSR 1 9SS.
9 .rJxd S
1 0 ed+ .rJc7
1 1 h4 h6
(a) 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2 aS Q.a7 1 3 Q.gS
ttxb2 1 4 .llx e7 d6! ( 1 4 ... §e8?
1 S '<td 1 ! d6 16 .llf6 ! ±± Barczay­
Shani 1 964) 1 S ..Q.xf8 ..Q.fS ! oo
Feldman-N ikiforov, corres 1 977.
Notwithstanding White 's great mat­
erial advantage the position cannot
be evaluated so simply, since
Black's attack is indeed quite
dangerous.
{b) 1 1 ... d6 1 2 aS ( 1 2 ..Q.gS lteS
1 3 ttxeS de 1 4 c4 :t is not bad
either) ..Q.a7 1 3 §a4! ttfS ( 1 3 ...
..Q.fS 1 4 g4 ± ± or 1 3 ... 0-0 1 4 §f4
..Q.fS 1 S g4 §ae8 1 6 '<td 1 tteS
1 7 ttxeS de 1 8 §xfS .rJxfS 1 9 ef
± ± Bebchuk-Bakulin, USS R 1 963)
1 4 §e4 ..Q.xf2+ 1 S '<td 1 ttxdS+
16 .rJd2 ..Q.fS 1 7 c4 ! ( U nclear is
17 § xe7+ '<tf8 18 ttxf2 '<txe7
1 9 ..Q.e2 c;t£8 20 §fl ..Q.g6 Pantazi­
Balshan, Ybbs 1 968) 1 7 ... ttcS
1 8 § xe7+ '<td8 1 9 13e4 ..Q.xe4 20
�xe4 ttd4+ 2 1 '<tc2 §e8 22 ttxf2
ttxe4+ 23 ..Q.d 3 ± Stoica-Orlovsky,
Warsaw 1 970.
1 1 ... ttd6 1 2 aS Q.a7 1 3 ..Q.gS (A
complicated position arises after
1 3 §a4 '<td8 ! 1 4 §h3 §e8; Biack's
threats on the e-file are entirely
real. The game Mestei-G . Garci a,
Scotch Game 29
Mexico 1 978 continued : 1 S .Q.gS f6
1 6 ..Q.f4 ttxd S 1 7 13d3 ltc6 1 8 §c4
.rJdS+ 21 '<td2 ..Q.e6 +) 1 3 ... h6 1 4
ttf6 1 7 ltg3 ..Q.xf2 1 8 ttxc7 .rJdS
19 ltc4 lte6 20 § h 3 ! 0-0 2 1 g4 ±
Timofeyeva-Dmitrieva, USS R 1 9S8.
1 2 aS ..Q.a7 (2 7)
27
w
1 3 §a4!
Only this m ove allows White to
fight for the advantage. B l ack has a
good game on other continuations.
(a) 1 3 ..Q.gS ? ? hg 14 hg ttxf2+ ++
( b ) 1 3 § h 3 d 6 1 4 §g3 0-0 1 S c4
..Q.d7 + Shefs-Beni, Prague 1 9S6.
(c) 1 3 ..Q.d2 d6! ( 1 3 ... ttxb2? 1 4
§h3 ± ) 1 4 ..Q.c3 ttf4 1 S .ll x g7
( 1 S g3 ttg4 ) 1 S ... §g8 16 g3
=
(in case of 1 6 ..Q.c3 lld7 followed by
0-0-0 and Black takes over the
initiative) 1 6 ... ttxf2+ 1 7 ttxf2
..Q.xf2+ 1 8 '<txf2 §g7 =.
(d) 1 3 g4 and now:
(d 1 ) 13 ... '<td8 14 gS ttd6 1 5 gh
gh 16 ..Q.d2 ttxd5 17 §h2 d6 1 8
0-0-0 Salminsh-Pec, corres 1 976.
(d2) 13 ... ttd6 1 4 ..Q.d2 ttxd5
1 5 §h3 lte6 16 ..Q.e3 d6 1 7 0-0-0
0-0 + Padevsky-Reshevsky, Tel-Aviv
O L 1 964.
30 Scotch Game
(d3) 1 3 .. d6 1 4 �a4 0-0 ( 1 4 ...
. 22 ... �h3 23 l::! f6 l'txfl + 24 �d2
�f8 15 �e4 �d7 16 g5 ! hg 1 7
�xg5 ± Henkin-Bonch-Osmolovsky,
USSR 1 957) 15 g5 *f5 ! ( 1 5 ...
l'te5? 16 �e4 l'txd5 17 c4 l'tc6
1 8 �g1 �g6 1 9 gh �f5 20 �g2
± Bebchu k-Sazonov, USSR 1 962)
1 6 gh �d7 ! 1 7 1::! e4 1::! fe8 1 8 �g2
�xd5 1 9 0-0 �f6 + l vanov­
Krutiansky, USS R 1 974.
13 0-0
1 4 g4
White m ust develop and attack .
Worse is 1 4 d6 l'txd6 1 5 �f4 l't f6
1 6 �e5 ( 1 6 �xc7 d6 + ) 1 6 ... l'te6
1 7 �xc7 d5 + Analysis.
14 �xd5
After 14 . .. l'td6 15 g5 l'txd4
1 6 �g1 Wliite 's attack is very strong.
1 5 g5 l'tc6
1 6 !::! c4
White can continue the attack
with 1 6 gh . For example 1 6 ...
l'txa4 1 7 hg with strong threats.
Or 1 6 ... d6 1 7 1::! c4 l'tb5 1 8 l'tf3 !
(worse is 1 8 l'th5 ? �e8+ 1 9 �d2
�xf2! 20 !::! e4 .Q.e 1 + ! 21 �xe 1
l'tb4+ 22 c3 *f4+ winning I tkis­
Ziotn i k, USS R 1 969) 1 8 ... l::! e 8+
1 9 �d 1 �f6 20 l::! g 1 ± .
16 �c3
1 7 be l'txh 1
1 8 gh d5
1 9 hg �xg7
20 l'te5+ �g8
2 1 l'tg5+ �h7
Yl - Yl
Gershunsky-Shianovsky, USS R
1 955. White agreed to the draw pre·
maturely. Grandmaster Paul Keres
proposed in this position the
move 22 �f4 ! where the attack
cannot be stopped . For example:
l'txf2+ 25 l::! xf2 �xf2 26 l'thS+
�8 27 l'tf3 winning. Analysis.
C2 1 2
7 �ge7 (28)
28
w
Grandmasters Portisch and Un­
zicker frequently employ this
continuation . In contrast to the
variation 7 ... l'tf6, p l ay devel ops
more peacefully. Black usual ly
obtains a solid, if somewhat con­
stricted position.
8 �g5
Other moves promise White less.
(a) 8 �d5 �xd5 9 ed �e5 1 0 �e2
d6 1 1 a5 .Q.a7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 {ld4
l'th4 = Kim-M akarichev, USS R
1 970.
(b) 8 g3 0-0 9 �g2 d6 1 0 0-0 �e6
1 1 {ld5 �a 7 1 2 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 1 3
�xe3 l'td7 1 4 c4 f5 = Rot-Hamarat,
corres 1 979.
(c) 8 a5 .Q.a7 9 .Q.g5 0-0 1 0 l'td2 d6
1 1 0-0-0 .Q.e6 1 2 �d5 f6 1 3 .Q.h4
�h8 1 4 .Q.e2 {lg8 Hort-Portisch ,
=
Monte Carlo 1 969.
8 f6
9 �h4 0-0
1 0 l'td2
1 0 .Q.e2 ( 1 0 -'lc4+ �h8 1 1 0-0
d6 1 2 �h 1 �e5 1 3 �e2 �5g6
 Scotch Game 31

1 4 �g3 fS :+: M usil- Unzicker, ( 1 0 �gS? �xf2+! ) �xd S 1 1 ed

Maribor 1 967 ) 1 0 ... d6 1 1 0-0 �g6 �eS 1 2 �d4 = Pfleger-Keres,
1 2 .Q.g3 fS 1 3 ef llxfS 1 4 �dS lla7 Tal l i n 1 97 3 ; or 9 ite2 �ge7 1 0 .11 g S
= Barczay-Addison , Havana OL 0-0 1 1 0-0-0 f6 1 2 �e3 �e6
1 966. 1 3 �xa7 §xa7 1 4 �d4 �xd4 =

10 d6 Furmston-Hamarat, corres 1 979.

1 1 0-0-0 8 �ge7
1 1 llc2 ( 1 1 .Q.c4+ '<th8 1 2 f4? ! The variation 8 ... �f6 �gS IS
�g6 1 3 .Q.g3 �aS ! + Rodrigucz­ exam ined under B 1 4.
Unzicker, Siegen OL 1 970) �g6 9 �gS �e6
1 2 �g3 fS 1 3 ef �xfS Selinger­
= 1 0 aS .Q.a7
Hamarat, corres 1 979. 1 1 �dS h6
11 �d7 1 2 �e3 !
1 1 ... �e6 1 2 �d S � 1 2 �h4 �xd S 1 3 ed �eS 1 4
1 2 f4 ;!; h 3 ( 1 4 �d4 �xd4 1 S itxd4 �fS :+: )
Radulov-Portisch , Budapest 1 4 ... gS 1 S .Q.g3 �fS 1 6 �h2
1 9 70. The game continued 1 2 .. . itf6 :+: .
itb8 ( Keres recommended 1 2 .. . 12 �xe3
ite8 ) 1 3 �dS �xd S 1 4 ed �e7 1 S 1 3 �xe3 0-0
aS �a7 and now White should have 1 4 0-0 itd7
p l ayed 1 6 .Q.d 3 b6 1 7 §he1 §e8 1 S c3 fS !
=

1 8 §e2 ! ± Keres. lvanovic -Tal, Tal l i n 1 979.The game

C21 3 continued 16 ef �xfS 1 7 �xfS
7 d6 (29) §xfS 1 8 �d4 �xd4 1 9 itxd4 and
now Black had to play 1 9 ... cS ! =.

29 C2 1 4
w 7 �f6 (30)

30
w

This move was met in the praxis

of G randmaster Keres, and that
serves as a good recommendation.
8 .Q.e2
The i nclusion of the moves 8
�dS .Q.a7 gives White nothing.
For example: 9 .11 e 2 �f6 1 0 0-0
A good move, sufficient for
achieving an even game. The pin of
the �f6 with �gS is not dangerous
for B l ack.
32 Scotch Game

8 aS 37
(a) 8 .Q.gS d6 9 'l'te2 (Bad is 9 �dS
on account of 9 ... �xf2+. It is 8
namely this threat which makes
7 ... �f6 possible.) 9 . . . h6 1 0 .Q.h4
( 1 0 �xf6 '1'txf6 1 1 �dS? 'I'txb2 1 2
aS �xaS 1 3 !haS .Q.xaS+ 1 4 �xaS
'l'ta1 + + + Boleslavsky. Bette r is
10 .Q.e3 ) 1 0 ... �d4! 1 1 �xd4
=

.Q.xd4 + Tseitli n-Gel ler, USS R

1 97 1 .
(b) 8 .Q.e2 d 6 9 .Q.gS .Q.e6 1 0 0-0
h6 1 1 �h4? ( 1 1 �xf6 ) 1 1 ... g5 ! long. Besides that, White holds in
1 2 �g3 hS 1 3 h4 �g4 + Zagor­ reserve the move .Q.b5, which is not
=

ovsky-K islov, USS R 1 9 80. available after 6 a4 a6 since the b5

8 .Q.a7 square is controlled by Black.
9 .Q.gS d6 I n the position of diagram 31
1 0 �e2 the best continuation, in my view,
(a) 10 'l'td2 h6 1 1 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 1 2 is 6 ... d6. After 6 ... 'l'tf6 and 6 . . .
'l'txe3 0-0 1 3 �d4? ( 1 3 0-0-0 ) �ge7 White 's chances are preferable.
=

1 3 ... �b4 1 4 '1'td2 dS 1 5 ed cS ! After 6 ... �f6 Black can count on

+ Bukai-Lutikov, Sarajevo 1 969. equality ; this move is acceptable, as
(b) 1 0 .Q.d3 h 6 1 1 .Q.h4 �e6 1 2 is 6 ... d6.
0-0? ! gS 1 3 .Q.g3 hS + Brat­ (a} 6 ... 'l'tf6 7 'l'te2 �ge 7:
Zembinsky, corres 1 977. (al ) 8 g3 0-0 9 �g2 d6 10 �d 1 aS !
(c) 1 0 !h4 h6 1 1 .Q.h4 .Q.e6 1 2 1 1 a4 .Q.e6 1 2 �e3 Axb3 1 3 cb
�dS gS 1 3 .Q.g3 �xdS 1 4 ed �e7 �d4 + Lazarevic -Breken, Belgrade
+ Berchenko-l vanov, U SS R 1 973. 1 97S.
10 h6 (a2} 8 �dS ? ! �xd S 9 ed+ �e7 1 0
Less accurate is 10 ... .Q.e6 1 1 0-0 h4 h6 1 1 g4 ( 1 1 §h3 d6 1 2 §f3
h6 1 2 .Q.xf6 'l'txf6 1 3 �dS .Q.xdS 'l'tg6 1 3 �f4 f5 1 S �d 2 0-0 1 5 c4
14 ed �eS 1 S c3 0-0 1 6 g3 ;l; §e8 16 hS 'l'tf7 1 7 .Q.e3 g5 +
Tringov-Stein, Bulgaria 1 96S . White Bellon-Tatai, Rome 1 977} 1 1 ... d6
later played *&2, ! h4 and �b4. 1 S gS 'l'tfS 1 3 gh gh 1 4 c4 'l'tf6 1
1 1 .Q.xf6 'l'txf6 ( 1 4 . . . .Q.d 7 leads to an equal game
1 2 0-0 �e7 = ( Kupreich i k-K iovan, USS R 1 973}
The game is level, i.e. 1 3 *h 1 but Black can fight for the advan­
0-0 1 4 f4 c6 with equal chances. tage here} 1 S .Q.h3 �xh 3 16 � xh3
C22 0-0-0 + Shranz-Oman, corres 1 979.
6 �c3 (37) (a3} A continuation d eserving atten­
White tries to avoid the move tion is 8 h4! ? h6 9 .Q.e3 0.0 1 0
a4, which weakens the position of 0-0-0 d 6 1 1 f3 .Q.e6 1 2 g4 �eS
his king in the event of castling 1 3 �d2 .Q.xe3 1 4 'l'txe3 �7g6 1 S

�e2 §feB 1 6 gS ± l vanov-Dommes,
USS R 1 97S .
(a4) 8 .ll c3 0-0 9 0-0-0 d6 1 0 h4
be3+ ( 1 0 . . . .lld 7 1 1 f3 .llx e3+
1 2 -t6'xe3 aS 1 3 g4 a4 14 gS "l6'e6
1S �d2 dS 1 6 .ll h 3 :t K u preich i k ­
Eslon, Wijk aan Zee 1 977) 1 1
�xe3 .ll e6 1 2 .ll c 2 § fe8 1 3 f4 t
K u p reichi k-Zakh arov, USS R 1 976.
(b) 6 ... �ge7 7 .llg S f6 8 ..Q.h4
0-0 9 -t6'd 2 d6 1 0 0-0-0 aS Radulov­
Kolarov, Sofia 1 979. Now White
should have played 1 1 .ll b S ±
Radu lov.
(c) 6 ... �f6 7 .llg S (7 ..Q.d 3 h6 8
0-0 0-0 9 a4 a6 1 0 �dS �xd5 1 1
ed �eS 1 2 aS ..Q.a7 1 3 d6 cd 1 4
..Q.e4 d S ! 1 5 ..ll x dS d 6 Kosikov­
= dependable variation .
Podgayets, U k raine Ch 1 980) h6 8
Q.h4 d6 9 .ll b S .lld 7 1 0 a4 a6
1 1 ..Q.xc6 ..Q.xc6 1 2 �d4 ..Q.d7 1 3
f3 c6 1 4 0-0 -tWe 7 1 5 *h 1 0-0-0
16 b4 dS 1 7 ed "l6'xb4 unclear
Kupreich ik-Furman, USS R 1 976.
6 d6
This elastic continu ation is the
most comfortable for Black. Now
it is best for White to play 7 a4 a6
=, leading to variation B 1 3. At­
tempts to get more th an that lead
to the opposite result, e.g. 7 �d S ? !
-t6'h4! 8 "l6'c2 ( 8 *f3 �f6 ! 9 �xf6+
-t6'xf6 1 0 -t6'xf6 gf 1 1 ..Q.bS fS
1 2 ef ..Q.xfS 1 3 c3 0-0-0 Radu lov-
GI igoric , Vrsac 1 977) 8 ... ..Q.g4
9 -t6'd2 ..Q.e6 (Also good is 9 . . . �f6
Razuvayev) 1 0 ..Q.d3 ..Q.xdS 1 1 cd
�cS 1 2 0-0 �f6 1 3 ..Q.bS+ *fB
1 4 ..Q.e2 §e8 + Tatai-Kraidman,
Beersheva 1 97 8 .
D 1 979/80) and now:
4 -t6'f6 (32)
The goal of this very old move is
Scotch Game 33
32
w
to avoid the vanat 1 on 4 ... ..Q.cS
5 �b3. After 5 ..Q.e3 ..Q.cS = or
5 �xc6 ..Q.cS = a position arises
which h as been considered u nder
C1 . The move 4 ... -t6'f6 is a fu lly
5 �f3
White does not obtain the
advantage against other contin­
uations either:
(a) 5 �b5 ..Q.cS 6 "l6'e2 .llb 6 (6 . . .
-t6'd 8? 7 ..Q.e3 ..Q.xe3 8 "l6'xe3 a6 9
�d4 ± Sveshnikov-Sher, USS R
Young Masters Ch 1 976) 7 � 1 c3
�ge7 8 ..Q.e3 ..Q.aS ! (8 ... a6 9
..Q.xb6 ab 1 0 .ll x c 7 b4 Zhdanov­
Zhuravlyev, USS R 1 964 and now
1 1 cS ! ± Keres) 9 0-0-0 a6 1 0 �d5
�xd5 1 1 ed ab 12 ..Q.d4+ "l6'e7
1 3 de de 1 4 "l6'xe7+ *xe7 1 5
..Q.xg7 §g8 1 6 ..Q.d4 ..Q.b6 1 7 ..Q.xb6
cb 1 8 a3 ..Q.e6 + Kupreichik-Nei,
Byelorussia-Estonia 1 975.
(b) 5 �b3 *g6 (Deservi ng of
attention is 5 ... aS ! ? 7 a4 ?! "l6'g6
7 ..Q.c3 �f6 8 f3 d 5 ! 9 �c3 ..Q.b4
1 0 ed �e 7 1 1 *f2 0-0 1 2 ..Q.d 3
-t6'h 5 + Prandstetter-Spi l n ner, Prague
(b 1 ) 6 "l6'e2 4lf6 7 e5 �d5 8 f4? !
d6! ? 9 ed+ ..Q.e6 1 0 �c3 �xc3
34 Scotch Game

1 1 be ..Q.d6 1 2 itf2 0-0 1 3 ..Q.d3 from the White knight. After 5 ...
..Q.f5 + Berkowitz-Lein, USS R 1 973. ..Q.c5 ? ! 6 �c3 �ge7 7 ..Q.g5 itg6
( b2) 6 itf3 �f6 7 � 1 d 2 ..Q.e7 8 8 h4! f6 9 h5 itf7 1 0 .Q.f4 ;!;
..Q.b5 0-0 9 0-0 d5 ! 1 0 ..Q.xc6 be Wh ite has the better chances,
1 1 �e1 �e8 1 2 e5 ..Q.g4 1 3 itd3 Klovan- l vanov, USS R 1 975 .
..Q.f5 1 4 itc3 �d7 1 5 �d4 c5 = 6 c3 ..Q.c5
Garcia Padron-Tseshkovsky, Las 7 .Q.c4 �ge7
Palmas 1 976. 8 0·0 d6
=

5 ..Q.b4+! The game is leve l .

I t is necessary to take away c3
4 Th ree Knigh t's
1 e4 e5
2 �f3 �c6
3 �c3 (33)
The Three K n ight's Game arises
in the case where Black, in the above
position, does not play 3 ... �f6.
After the move 3 ... �f6 ! == we have
the Four Knights Game.
3 g6
Stei nitz ' move, which is usual ly
adopted by Black if he wishes to
avoid the Four Knights and its
dull ish d rawing variations. The
move 3 ... g6 does not give Black
ful l equality, but it does lead to
complicated positions. Other con­
tinuations also fail to give Black
equality .
(a) 3 ... .Q.c5 4 �xeS! �xeS ( 4 ...
.Q.xf2+ S �xf2 �xeS 6 d4 itf6+
s
7 �1 �g4 8 itd2 ± ) d4 .Q.d6 6
de g_xeS 7 f4 ! .Q.xc3+ 8 be d6 9
itd4 ± .
(b) : 3 . .. fS 4 d4! (The move 4 Q.b5
lead s to the Spanish [ Schl iemann ­
tr. ] Opening) fe S �xeS �f6 6
.Q.c4 d S 7 �xd S ! �xdS 8 ith5+
g6 9 �xg6 hg (9 . .. �f6 1 0 .Q.f7+!
± ± ) 1 0 itxg6+ ( 1 0 �xh8? itf6 ! )
1 0 . . . �d7 1 1 .Q.xd 5 ± .
(c) ) ... .Q.b4 4 �dS �f6 (4 ... .Q.aS
5 c3 d6 6 b4 .Q.b6 8 .Q.g5 ±) 5
�xb4 �xb4 6 �xeS ite7 (6 ... d6
7 �f3 �xe4 8 c3 �c6 9 d 3 �f6
1 0 d4 ± ) 7 d4 d6 8 a3 ! (8 �d3
itxe4+ 9 .Q.e3 �bd 5 =) 8 ... de
(8 ... �xc2+ 9 itxc2 de 1 0 d 5 ±
or 8 ... �c6 9 �xc6 itxe4+ 1 0 .Q.e2
t) 9 ab ed (9 ... itxb4+ 1 0 c3 ite7
1 1 de itxe5 1 2 f3 ± or 9 ... �xe4
1 0 de itxb4+ 1 1 c3 ite7 1 2 itd4
± ) 1 0 itxd4 itxe4+ 1 1 't'txe4+
�xe4 1 2 .Q.f4 c6 1 3 .Q.d3 �f6
1 4 c4 t.
(d) 3 ... �ge7 4 g_c4t.
(e) 3 ... d6 4 .Q.bS t (Spanish ) .
4 d4
The- avoidance of this contin­
uation does not present B l ack
with any d ifficulties.
(a) 4 .Q.c4 .Q.g7 5 d3 �f6 (Also good
is 5 ... �ge7 6 �d5 �xd5 7 g_xd5
 36 Three Knight's
0-0 8 .Q.g5 lte8 9 ltd2 d6 1 0 h3
-'te6 1 1 .Q.xe6 ltxe6 1 2 .Q.h6 d5 =
Bronstein-Romanishin, USS R 1 975)
6 a3 d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 <tld5 h6
9 -'te3 �h 7 1 0 .Q.xf6+ ltxf6 1 1
<tld2 lte7 1 2 c3 f5 + Polykarpov­
K iovan, Pribaltic/Byelorussia Ch
1 979.
(b) 4 <tld5 .Q.g7 5 c3 <tlcc7 6 <tlc3
<tlf6 7 d3 d6 8 g3 b6 9 lta4+
.Q.d 7 1 0 ltc2 c5 1 1 a4 0-0 1 2
.Q.g2 <tlc6 = Kurajica-Belyavsky,
Novi Sad 1 979.
4 ed
A 5 <tld5
B 5 <tlxd4
The m ove 5 <tld5 (A) lead s to
a complex struggle with good
counterchances for Black. More
natural, and better, is 5 <tlxd4 ( B ) .
A h6 1 1 ..Q.h4 g5 1 2 ..Q.g3 Honfi­=
5 <tld5 ..Q.g7
6 .Q.g5 <tlce7 (34)
Worse is 6 ... f6 (6 ... <tlge7?
7 <tlxd4! .Q.xd4 8 ltxd4! <tlxd4
9 <tlf6+ �f8 1 0 ..Q.h6 mate) 7 .Q.f4
d6 8 <tlxd4 ± .
7 <tlxd4
(a) 7 <tlxe7 <tlxe7 8 ..Q.c4 h6 9 .Q.h4
0-0 1 0 0-0 d5 ! 1 1 ed (Black gets
a good game after 1 1 ..Q.xe7 ltxe7
1 2 ed ltc5 as wel l) 1 1 . . . g5 1 2 .Q.g3
<tlxd5 + Simagin-Keres, USS R
1 955.
(b) 7 e5 h6 8 .Q.xe7 (8 .Q.h4 g5 9
<tlxe7 ltxe7 + Winawer-Steinitz,
London 1 883) 8 ... <tlxe7 9 ltxd4
<tlxd4 1 0 ltxd5 d6! ( 1 0 . . . c6?
1 1 ltd6 .Q.f8 1 2 ltd4 ltb6 1 3 0-0-0
;l; Alckhine-Bogolj ubow, Dresden
1 936) 1 1 0-0-0 0-0 1 2 ..Q.c4 ( 1 2 ed
.Q.e6 ! and Black has a strong attack)
1 2 ... lle6 1 3 lte4 .O.xc4 1 4 ltxc4
lte7 1 5 ed cd
.\0) 7 .Q.c4 c6 (7 ... h6 8 llh4 g5
=.
9 .Q.g3 �xd 5 1 0 ..Q.xd 5 <tlf6 1 1
ltxd4 0-0 1 2 ..Q.b3 §e8 1 3 e5
c5 1 4 ltd2 b5 1 5 .Q.d5 <tlxd5
16 ltxd5 .Q.a6 1 7 0-0 ± Cherny aev­
Vorotni kov, USS R 1 972) 8 <tlxe7
<tlxe7 9 ltd 2 (9 0-0 0-0 1 0 <tlxd4
Radovici, Kecskemet 1 962) 9 ...
h6 1 0 ..Q.h4 b5? 1 1 ..Q.b3 g5 1 2
..Q.g3 c5 1 3 a4! ..ll b 7 1 4 ab ..ll x e4
1 5 h4 <tlf5 1 6 hg .Q.xf3 1 7 gf
<tlxg3 1 8 fg fg 1 9 §h8+ ..ll x h8
20 �f2 ± Estrin -Honfi , Kecskemet
1 979. Better is 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 <tlxd4
d5 1 2 ed cd 1 3 ..ll e 2 ( 1 3 .Q.b3 g5
1 4 ..llg 3 <tlc6 1 5 <tlxc6 be ) 1 3 . . .
=
ltb6! ? 1 4 ..ll x e7 §e8 (Analysis) .
=
7 c6
Possible is 7 ... h6 8 ..ll e 3 (8
..Q.h4! ?) <tlxd5 9 ed and now not
9 ... <tlf6? 1 0 d6! ± Cherniak­
Rom an i sh i n , Goteborg 1 971 , but
9 ... d6 Keres.
=
8 <tlxe 7
B l ack also h as a good game
after 8 <tlc3 h6, for example:
(a) 9 ..Q.h4 d 5 ! 1 0 e d ltb6 1 1 <tlb3
ltb4 ! +
(b) 9 ..Q.e3 <tlf6 (Worse is 9 ... d5

1 0 ed �xd5 1 1 �xd5 't'txd5 1 2
�b5 ! ± Nei-Helle, Helsi n k i 1 968) .
(b 1 ) 1 0 f4 d5 1 1 e5 �g4 1 2 Q.g1
�f5 1 3 �xf5 .Q.xf5 + R istoja­
Urzica, G roningen 1 969.
(b2) 10 f3 d5! 1 1 e5 �h7 1 2 't'td2
.Q.xe5 1 3 Q.xh6 g5 ! 1 4 .Q.xg5 �xg5
1 5 f4 c5 + Kosikov-Vorotni kov,
USS R 1 975 .
(b3) 1 0 .Q.c4 0-0 1 1 e5 (1 1 't'tf3?
d5 1 2 ed c5 ! 1 3 �bd5 a6 +
Gufeld-Petrosi an , USS R 1 969) 1 1
. . . �e8 1 2 't'td2 d5! 1 3 ed 1 4 Q.b3
�ef5 1 5 �xf5 �xf5 + Tarve­
Keres, Parnu 1 97 1 .
(c) 9 .Q.f4 d5 1 0 't'td 2 �f6 (Danger·
ous is 1 0 ... de? 1 1 0-0-0 with a
strong attack for Wh ite, i .e . : 1 1 ...
�f5 12 �db5! 't'txd2+ 13 a:xd2
cb 14 .Q.xb5+ winning) 1 1 0-0-0
�xe4 1 2 �xe4 de 1 3 Q.c4 ( 1 3
't'te3 itb6 ! 1 4 .Q.d6 Bagirov-Schmidt,
Polanica Zdroj 1 969 and now
14 ... �f5 ! 15 't'txe4 Q.e6 + . On
1 4 't'txe4 there would fol l ow
1 4 ... .Q.f5 ! 1 5 't'te3 0-0-0! +)
1 3 ... �f5 1 4 �b3 itxd2+ 1 5 �xd 2
= Lehmann-Keres, Hamburg 1 960.
8 �xe7
9 itd2 h6
1 0 .Q.h4
The move 10 .Q.f4 leads via
transposition to the position of the
main variation after 1 0 ... d5 1 1
0-0-0 g5 1 2 Q.g3.
10 d5
1 1 0-0-0
1 1 ed itxd5 1 2 be7 itxd4 = 8 0-0 ) d6 8 itd2 �f6 9 h3 0-0
Chesnauskas-N ei, USS R 1 964.
11 g5
1 2 .Q.g3 de
1 3 't'te3 (35)
1 3 .Q.c4 0-0 1 4 ite3 �d5 ! 1 5
Three Knight's 37
*b3 *b6 + Vasyukov-Has i n , Kis­
lovodsk, 1 968.
35
8
An important position for the
evaluation of the variation 5 �d5 .
I n the sharp struggle Black's chances
are in any event no worse. Here are
a few examples:
(a) 1 3 ... itd5 ? 14 �b5 ! .Q.xb2+
15 *xb2 itxd 1 1 6 �c7+ *d8
1 7 .Q.d3 ! itxh l 1 8 itd4+ ± ±
Szmetan-Frey, Bogota 1 977).
(b) 13 ... ita5 14 Q.c4 itb4 1 5
.Q.e2 0-0 1 6 a3 't'tb6 1 7 itxe4
�f5 ( 1 7 ... .Q.f5 ! ?) 1 8 .Q.c7 itc5
1 9 b4 't'tc3 20 �xf5 itxa3+, and
Black is guaranteed at least a draw,
Vinokurov-Kozlov, USSR 1 975.
(c) 1 3 ... itb6 14 .Q.d6 .Q.e6 1 5
.Q.xe 7 *xe 7 1 6 ita3+ c5 1 7 �xe6
fe 1 8 .Q.c4 a:ad8 1 9 §del itc6
20 itb3 a6 ! + Morgulyev-Sheresh­
� ky, Baku 1 975 .
B ·
5 �xd4 .Q.g7
6 .Q.e3 (36)
6 �xc6 ? ! be 7 .Q.e3 (7 .Q.d3 d6
=
1 0 .Q.d3 d5 1 1 ed cd 1 2 .Q.d4 a:e8+
+
1 3 *1'1 .Q.b7 14 h4 c5! Rusakov­
Polovodin, Zenith Ch , Leningrad-
1 980.
6 �f6
38 Three Knight's
36
8 + Rosseto-Keres, Mar del Plata
The most principled contin­
uation, which nevertheless does not
free Black from difficul ties. Less
active is 6 ... {)ge7, i.e. 7 itd2 0-0
8 0-0-0 d6 9 h4 {)xd4 1 0 �xd4
�xd4 1 1 itxd4 ± Obukhovsky­
Radevich, USS R 1 978. White i s
� o better after 6 ... d6:
� 7 �b5 �d7 8 �xc6 be 9 itd2
�t6 1 0 �h6 0-0 1 1 �xg7 <&>xg7
1 2 0-0-0 ( 1 2 0-0 ge8 Karasev­
=
Geller, USSR 1 97 1 ) 1 2 ... ge8
1 3 f3 a5 1 4 g4 a4 1 5 h4 h5
16 g5 {)h7 17 f4 {)f8 19 f5 ±
K immel feld-Malaniuk, USS R Trud
J-275.
(b� 7 itd2 {)f6 8 f3 (8 0-0-0 {)g4
9 {)xc6 be 1 0 .Q.d4 �xd4 1 1 itxd4
it f6= Bellon-Karpov, Las Palmas
1 977) 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0-0 {)xd4
10 �xd4 �e6 1 1 g4 c5 1 2 �e3
*a5 1 3 �h6 �xa2? ! 14 �xg7
*xg7 1 5 {)xa2 itxa2 1 6 itc3 ! ±
Yurtayev-Belyavsky, F runze 1 979.
7 {)xc6 !
O ther continuations for White
are weaker.
(a) 7 f3 {)e7 ! 8 �c4 d5 9 ed
{)fxd5 1 0 {)xd5 {)xd5 + Zukertort­
Steinitz, Vienna 1 882.
(b) 7 g3 0-0 8 �g2 d6 9 h3 {)e5 ! = 1 4 �f3 t
Savon-Ree, Sukhumi 1 972.
(c) 7 �e2 0-0 8 0-0 (8 itd 2 ges
9 f3 d5 1 0 {)xc6 be 1 1 ed �xd 5 !
1 957) 8 ... ge8 {)xc6 be 1 0 �f3
�b7 1 1 itd2 d6 Bagirov-Keres,
=
Moscow 1 963.
(d) 7 �c4 0-0 (7 ... d6 8 f3 0-0
9 itd2 {)e5 1 0 ..ll e 2 d4! 1 1 f4
�eg4 1 2 e5 {)xe3 1 3 itxe3 c5! +
Carden- Littlewood, Hastings 1 969/
70. Better is 1 0 ..llb 3 ) 8 0-0 (8
=
{)xc6 be 9 e5 ? ! {)e8 1 0 e6 fe
1 1 ..llx e6+ *h8 + Prameshuber­
Keres, Munich 1 958) 8 ... §e8
9 §e1 d6 1 0 f3 a6 Hort-Keres,
=
Moscow 1 963.
7 be
8 e5 {)g8
9 ..lld 4!
(a) 9 Af4 fie7 10 itf3 f6 1 1 0-0-0
fe 1 2 ..llc4 ..llb 7 + Chernin-Radash­
kovich, USSR 1 971 .
(b) 9 f4 {)e7 ! ? (9 ... f6 1 0 itd2 fe
1 1 fe ..llx e5 1 2 0-0-0 d6 1 3 §e1
{)f6 14 ..llg 5 ite 7 1 5 ..llc4 ! ..lle6
1 6 �e4! ± Shabanov-Vorotnikov,
USSR 1 977) 1 0 itd 2 d6 1 1 0-0-0
0-0 1 2 ..llf2 (1 2 ed cd 1 3 itxd6?
itxd6 1 4 §xd6 ..ll x c3 1 5 be �f5
1 6 gd3 ..lla6 + ) 1 2 ... ..llg4 1 3 ..1le2
itc8 ! 1 4 ed cd 1 5 §he1 ..ll x e2
1 6 §xe2 itb7 Black's attack on
=
the queenside m ight turn out to be
dangerous, Shabanov-Kimmelfeld,
USS R 1 979.
9 ite7
9 ... {)e 7 1 0 e6! ±
1 0 ite2 f6
1 1 ef �f6
1 2 0-0-0 itxe2
1 3 ..llx e2 0-0
Garbuzov-Tuzovsky, USSR 1 976.
5 Fou r Kni gh t ' s
1 e4 e5
2 �f3 �c6
3 �c3 �f6 (37)
The Four Knight's is one of a
number of peacefu l openings. By
proper play Black manages to
equalize. The sharpest continuation
for White is the 'Belgrade Gambit',
developed by Yugosl av chessplayers:
4 d4 ed 5 �d5.
37
w 6 �xe5 and now (accord ing to
A 4 �b5
B 4 d4
The position arising a�ter 4 _Q,c4
is examined in the chapter on the
Two Knight's Defence (p. 82) . The
moves 4 �e2, 4 a3 and 4 g3 do not
give White any chances for the
advantage and therefore are not
considered.
A
4 �b5
and now:
A1 4 ... �b4
A2 4 ... �d4
If 4 ... d6 5 d4 t - S panish
G ame.
Al
4 �b4
Other continuations are weaker.
(a) 4 ... �c5 5 0-0 0-0 (5 ... d6
6 d4 ed 7 �xd4 Q.d7 8 �f5 ! 0-0
9 Q.g5 bf5 1 0 ef �d4 1 1 �d3 ± )
Keres) :
(a1 ) 6 ... §e8 7 �f3 �xe4 8 d4
and then d5 ±
(a2) 6 ... �d4 7 �f3 �xc3 8 de
�xe4 9 §e1 d5 10 c4 ±
(a3) 6 ... {)d4 7 �c4 d6 8 �f3
�g4 9 �e2 �xe2+ 1 0 itxe2 §e8
1 1 d3 ±
( a4) 6 ... �xe5 7 d4 .Q.d6 8 f4
{)c6 9 e5 Q.b4 1 0 d5 a6 1 1 Q.e2
�c5+ 1 2 �h 1 �xd 5 1 3 itxd5
± Shaposhnikov-Borisenko, corres
1 956.
(b) 4 ... a6 5 Q.xc6 de 6 �xe5
�xe4 7 {)xe4 itd4 8 0-0 itxe5
8 §e1 �e6 1 0 d4 itf5 ( 1 0 ... itd5
1 1 �g5 0-0-0 1 2 �xe6 fe 1 3 itg4
itxd4 1 4 itxe6+ itd7 1 5 itxd7+
 40 Four Knight 's

§xd7 1 6 §e8 :!: Reti-Spielmann , 6 d6

Vienna 1 9 1 4) 1 1 lllg S h6 ( 1 1 ... Black should keep the symmetry.
llld 6 1 2 g4! -c»-g6 13 f4 fS 14 I n the even t of other continu ations
4:lxd6+ cd 1 S d S ! ± Znosko­ he gets the worst of the play.
Borovsky-Rubinstein, Ostende (a) 6 ... 4)e7 7 4)xeS (7 .lll gS c6
1 907) 1 2 -c»-d 3 'it>d7 ( 1 2 ... hg?? 8 .lllc4 4)g6 9 4)h4 :!: ) 7 ... c6 8 .lll c4
1 3 4:ld6+ ± ± ) 1 3 11h4 -c»-bS (1 3 ... .lll x c3 9 be -c»-aS 1 0 �xf7 ± Keres.
§e8 14 c4! .llld 6 1 S §ac 1 'it>c8 (b) 6 ... d 5 7 4)xd S 4)xdS 8 ed
1 6 d S ! ± ) 1 4 -c»-d 2 §e8 1 S b3 'it>c8 -c»-xdS 9 �c4 -c»-d6 1 0 c3 Ill eS 1 1
1 6 c4 -c»-hS 1 7 lllg 3 :!: Bel avenets. b4 Q.b6 1 2 a4 aS 1 3 bS 4)e7 1 4
s 0-0 4)gS ± Stern-Marshal l , Pestien
(a) S d3 4)d4! 6 llla4 bS 7 �b3 1 9 1 2.
dS ! 8 4)xeS -c»-e7 9 f4 0-0 + ) (c) 6 ... 4)d4 7 4)xd4 ed 8 4)e2
(b) 5 4)d5 4)xd5 6 e d e 4 7 de de c6 (8 ... dS 9 e S ! 4)g4 1 0 c3 de
8 .llle 2 ef 9 �xf3 0-0 = 1 1 be ± ) 9 .llla4 dS 1 0 eS 4)g4 1 1
(c) 5 .lll x c6 de 6 4)xe5 �xc3 7 c3 ! de 1 2 be .lll aS 1 3 d4 -c»-h4
be 4)e4 8 -c»-e2 -c»-dS 9 f4 0-0 1 4 h3 4)h6 1 S �c2 ± Perl is­
1 0 c4 -c»-d4 1 1 l::! b 1 1ld6 1 2 d 3 f6 Aiekhine, Carlsbad 1 91 1 .
1 3 4)f3 -c»-c5 Bilguer_
= (d) 6 ... .lll x c3 7 be dS 8 ed (8
s 0-0 .lllx c6 be 9 4)xeS t ) 8 ... -c»-xd5
The moves 5 ... 4)d4 and S ... d6 (8 ... 4)xd5 9 .lll x c6 be 1 0 4)xe5
are unacceptable for B l ack: 4)xc3 1 1 -c»-d2 4)d5 1 2 c4 ± Keres)
(a) 5 ... 4)d4? 6 4)xd4 ed 7 eS ! de 9 c4! -c»-d6 1 0 �xc6 be 1 1 Q.b2
8 be .llle 7 9 ef gf (9 ... 4)xf6 1 0 l::! e 8 1 2 -c»-e1 ! .lllg4 1 3 4)xeS 4)d7
.llla 3 ± ±) 1 0 d4 c6 1 1 d 5 ! ± ± . 1 4 f4 f6 1 5 -c»-g3 ± Korn-F riedman,
(b) 5 ... d 6 6 4)dS ! .Ille S 7 d 4 ed corres 1 938.
8 .lllg 5 0-0 9 �xc6 be 1 0 4)xf6+ 7 .lllg 5 (38)
gf 1 1 .lll h4 ± B ilguer. 7 4)e2 (7 .lllx c6 be 8 4)e2 l::! e 8 !
6 d3 9 4)g3 d5 1 0 c3 Q.d 6 1 1 l::! e 1 .llld 7
(a) 6 .lllx c6 (6 4)dS 4)xdS 7 ed = ) 7 . . . 4)e7 8 c3 .llla5 9 4)g3 c6
e4 ) 6 ... de 7 d3 .llld 6 (Also 10 .llla4 4)g6 1 1 d4 l::! e 8 ( 1 1 ... .llle6
possible is 7 ... 4)d7 8 -c»-e2 l::! e 8 1 2 .lll b 3 ;l; Keres) 1 2 .lll b 3 leads to
=

9 4)d 1 4)f8 1 0 .lllg S f6 1 1 Q.e3 approximately equal play after 1 2

�g4 = Sokolsky-Kasparian, USS R ... h6 (Worse is 1 2 ... ed 1 3 cd
1 938) 8 .lllg 5 h6 9 �h4 cS 1 0 .llle 6 1 4 4)gS .lllx b3 1 5 -c»-xb3 -c»-d 7
4)d5 gS 1 1 4)xf6+ -c»-xf6 1 2 �g3 1 6 f3 ;l; Alekhine-Euwe, Amster­
+
.lllg 4 Winter-Capablanca, Hastings dam 1 936. Black could not play
1 9 1 9. 1 3 ... 4)xe4? 14 4)xe4 §xe4 on
6 l::! e 1 d6 7 .lll x c6 be 8 d4 account of 1 5 Q.xf7+ ± or 1 S 4)gS
4)d7 9 �d2 l::! b 8 1 0 l::! b 1 �as ± ) 1 3 h3 �e6 1 4 l::! e 1 .lllb 6 1 S Q.e3
1 1 4)e2 .lll b 6 1 2 c4 f6 1 3 b4 c5 + -c»-c7 Sveshni kov-Yusupov, USS R
=

Schlechter-Tarrasch, San Sebastian 1 979. Black has no problems. The

1 9 1 2. attem pt to gain the initiative in

this game with 1 6 'ttd 2 ed 1 7
.Q.xh6? met with a decisive refu-
tat ion : 1 7 d e 1 8 be d 5 ! 1 9 e5
. . .
�c4 + .
38
8 defence, i.e. 1 6 Q.f4 'ttxc3 1 7 Q.d6
7 .Q.xc3
The most commonly used con­
tinuation. We examine other moves
for Black .
(a) 7 ... .Q.g4? 8 �d5 �d4 9 �xb4
'ttc 8 (9 ... �xb5 1 0 �d5 �d4 1 1
'ttd 2 c6 1 2 �xf6+ gf 1 3 .Q.h4
lhf3 14 'tth 6 �e2+ 1 5 <&>h 1 .Q.xg2+
1 6 <&>xg2 �f4+ 1 7 <&>h 1 �g6 1 8
§g1 ± ± ) 1 0 c3! .Q.xf3 1 1 gf �xb5
1 2 .Q.xf6 gf 1 3 a4 c5 ( 1 3 ... <&>h8
1 4 �c2! ± ± ) 1 4 �d5 <&>h8 1 5 ab
'tth 3 1 6 <&>h 1 §g8 1 7 �e3 ± ± .
(b) 7 ... .Q.e6 8 �e2 �e7 9 c3
.Q.a5 1 0 �g3 c6 1 1 Q.a4 �e8 1 2
d4 ;!; Duras-Kupch ik, New York
1913.
(c) 7 ... �e7 ! ? (Accord ing to Keres,
White gets the better chances here,
too, but this is not entirely clear)
8 �h4 (8 Q.xf6 gf 9 �h4 �g6
1 0 �xg6 hg 1 1 f4 <&>g7 1 2 'tt f3
.Q.c5+ 1 3 <&>h 1 ef 1 4 'ttxf4 Q.d4 = ;
o r 8 'tte 2 c6 9 .Q.c4 <&>h8 1 0 d4 �g6
1 1 §ad 1 h6 1 2 Q.c 1 'tte 7 1 3 de de
+ Maslesh a-Knezevic, Sarajevo
1 979) 8 ... c6 9 Q.c4 d5 ! ? 1 0 Q.b3
Four Knight's 41
'ttd 6 1 1 f4 Q.xc3 1 2 be de ( 1 2 ...
ef 1 3 'tte 1 ! ) 1 3 'tte 1 ed 1 4 fe
'ttc 5+ 1 5 i!H2. Keres evaluates
this position as favouring White .
I think that after 1 5 . . . 'ttx e5 !
Bl ack can hope for a successful
�e4 1 8 Q.xn+ <&>h8 1 9 'tte 3 �xd6
20 'ttx e7 'ttc 5+ 21 <&>h 1 .Q.g4!
Analysis.
8 be 'tte 7 (39}
The most widespread and, appar­
ently, the best move . Other contin­
uations have been looked at:
(a) 8 . .Q.g4 (8 ... Q.d7 9 �d2 ;!;)
9 h3 .Q.h5 1 0 g4 Q.g6 1 1 §b1 ;!;
..
Keres.
(b) 8 ... �e7 9 Q.xf6 gf 1 0 �h4
and further:
(b 1 ) 1 0 ... c6 1 1 Q.c4 d5 1 2
.Q.b3 <tlg6 ( 1 2 ... de 1 3 de itxd 1
1 4 §axd 1 ;!;) 1 3 <tlxg6 h g 1 4 f4
ef ( 1 4 ... de 1 5 fe fe 1 6 de ± ) 1 5
§xf4 <&>g7 1 6 'tt f3 Q.e6 1 7 §fl ±
Maroczy-Bernstein, Ostende 1 906.
(b2) 1 0 f5 1 1 f4 ( 1 1 'tth 5 ! ?)
...
<tlg6 1 2 <tlxf5 Q.xf5 1 3 ef <tlxf4
1 4 g3 ;!; Keres.
(c) 8 .. h6 9 Q.h4 and further:
( c 1 ) 9 .. g5 1 0 <tlxg5 <tlxe4 1 1 f4
.
.
ef 1 2 de h g 1 3 'tth 5 gh 1 4 §xf4 ±
 42 Four Knight 's
(c2) 9 . . . a 6 1 0 �c4 ( 1 0 .Q.xc6
be 1 1 d4 :l: Sokolsky-Aiatortsev,
USS R 1 950) 1 0 ... .Q.g4 1 1 h3
�xf3 1 2 itxf3 g5 1 3 �g3 ila5
1 4 �b3 ite7 1 5 d4 :l: Spassky­
Smyslov, USS R 1 96 1 .
(c3) 9 ... ilb8 1 0 d 4 ite7 1 1 ae1
c6 1 2 �f1 ilbd7 1 3 ild2 ae8 1 4
ilc4 ilf8 1 5 f4! ilg6 1 6 fe ilxh4
1 7 ef itxf6 1 8 itd3 :l: .
{c4) 9 ... ..Q.g4 ( 9 . . . .Q.d7 ! ? Keres)
1 0 h3 ..Q.xf3 ( 1 0 ... �h5 1 1 g4
Q.g6 1 2 itd2 ±) 1 1 itxf3 g5 1 2
�g3 ild 7 ( 1 2 ... ilh7 1 3 aab1 itc8
1 4 afd 1 'lig7 1 5 d4 ± J anowski­
Tarrasch, Vienna 1 898) 1 3 d4 f6
1 4 itg4 'lih8 1 5 h4 ± Capablanca­
Lasker, St. Petersburg 1 91 4.
(c5) 9 ... ite7 1 0 ae1 ( 1 0 itb2
ild8 1 1 d4 �g4! = Keres) 1 0 ...
..Q.g4 1 1 h3 ..Q.h5 1 2 g4 ..Q.g6 ;!;
Schlechter-Marshall , Ostende 1 907.
9 ae1
(a) 9 ..Q.xc6 (9 d4 ed 1 0 cd itxe4
+ ) 9 ... be 1 0 ild2 h6 1 1 �xf6
itxf6 1 2 itf3 itxf3 1 3 ilxf3 ..Q.e6
= Grunfeld-Capablanca, Carlsbad
1 929.
(b) 9 ild2 ! ? h6 (9 ... ild8 1 0 f4
ef 1 1 ..Q.xf4 ..Q.g4 1 2 ite1 ;!; Richter­
Teschner, Berlin 1 948� 1 0 Q.h4
ild8 1 1 ae 1 ile6 1 2 ilf1 ilf4 1 3
ile3 c6 1 4 �c4 ilg6 1 5 ..Q.g3 lle6
1 6 itf3 ilh7 ( 1 6 ... �xc4 1 7 be
± ) 1 7 ..Q.b3 aad8 1 8 aab1 b6 1 9
ilf5 itf6 20 d 4 c5 2 1 ith5 ;!;
Smyslov-Bagirov, USS R 1 978.
9 ild8
(a) 9 ... h 6 1 0 �h4 �d7 1 1 d4
aad8 1 2 a b 1 b6 1 3 itd2 ilb8
1 4 �d3 ;!; Euwe-Ree, Hol l and
1 973.
(b) 9 .. . a6 1 0 ..Q.xc6 ( 1 0 ..Q.c4
ila5 1 1 ild2 h6 1 2 �h4 lle6
1 3 ..Q.b3 ilxb 3 1 4 a b g5 1 5 ..Q.g3
ile8 ) 1 0 ... be 1 1 ild2 h6 1 2
=
..Q.h4 g5 1 3 �g3 �e6 1 4 d4 ild7
1 5 ith5 :l: Keres.
1 0 d4 ilc6
Capablanca's recommended con­
tinuation 1 0 ... ..Q.g4 1 1 hg ..Q.h5
(1 1 ... ..Q.xf3 1 2 itxf3 h6 1 3 ..Q.h4 t )
1 2 g4 ..Q.g6 also gives Black a reason ­
able game :
{ a ) 1 3 ..Q.h4 ile6 ( 1 3 . . . h5 1 4 ..Q.d3)
1 4 de de 1 5 ilxe5 itc5 1 6 ilxg6
hg 1 7 a b 1 g5 1 8 ..Q.g3 itxc3 =
l vkov-Unzicker, Santa Monica 1 966.
(b) 13 ilh4 h6 1 4 �c4 ! ( 1 4 ..Q.d2
..Q.xe4 ! 1 5 g5 h g 1 6 ..Q.xg5 ..Q.h 7 +
or 1 4 ..Q.xg6 fg 1 5 ..Q.c4+ 'lih7 1 6
..Q.g4 g5 1 7 ..Q.g3 ilf7 + Wolff­
Rubinstein, Vienna 1 922) 1 4 ...
ile6 ( 1 4 ... ..Q.h7 ! ?) 1 5 ilxg6 fg 1 6
f4 and now not 1 6 ... 'lih8 1 7
..Q.xf6 itxf6 1 8 �xe6 itxe6 1 9 d5 ;!;
Drewitt-Rubinstein, Hastings 1 922/
23, but bol d ly 1 6 ... hg 1 7 fS gf
1 8 gf g6! 1 9 �xe6+ 'llg 7 with a
sharp position and chances for both
sides - Keres.
(c) 1 3 d5 c6 14 Q.f1 ( 1 4 .Q.c4 §c8!
+ or 1 4 ..Q.d 3 cd 1 5 ed a c8 1 6 c4
e4! 1 7 ..Q.fl ile6! + Belavenets­
Panov, USS R 1 934) 1 4 ... cd ( 1 4
... §c8 1 5 c4 b 6 1 6 a4 ilb7 1 7
§a3 ilc5 1 8 ild2 h 6 1 9 ..Q.h4 llh7
20 f3 ;!; Batik-Ragozin , corres
1 956) 1 5 ed itc7 ( 1 5 ... §c8 1 6
§e3! itd7 1 7 ..Q.xf6 gf 1 8 ilh4 ±
N i kitin -Estri n , USS R 1 957) 1 6
..Q.xf6 gf 1 7 ae3 b6 1 8 ilh4 ilb 7
1 9 �d3 ilc5 Altschuler-Weltman­
=
der, corres 1 960.
1 1 ..Q.c1 (40)
1 1 ..Q.h4 ? ! ilf4 and then ilg6.

1 1 ... E! d 8 ! ?
A good move, prepan ng for the
opening of the centre with d6-d5.
Of the other continuations less
profi table is 1 1 ... c6, but ful l y
possi ble i s 1 1 ... c 5 .
(a) 1 1 . . . c6 1 2 .Q.fl E! d 8 ( 1 2 ...
Ykc7 13 �h4 E!e8 14 Ykd3 .Q.d7
1 5 g3 ;!; Duras- Rub instein, Carls­
bad 1 907) 1 3 g3 Ykc7 1 4 Q.g2 c5
1 5 d5 �f8 1 6 �h4 ;!; Louma­
Biatny, CSSR 1 953.
(b) 1 1 ... c5 and further:
(b 1 ) 1 2 g3 Ykc7 13 d5 c4 ! 1 4 de
llxe6 1 5 llg5 a6 16 llx f6 gf
1 7 .Q.a4 b5
= .
(b2) 1 2 .Q.fl Ykc7 ( 1 2 . . . cd 1 3 cd
Ykc7 14 .Q.b2 �d7 1 5 E!e3 ;!;) 1 3
d5 ! �d8 1 4 �h4 �e8 1 5 g3 Yka5
( 1 5 . . . Yke7 1 6 �f5 .Q.xf5 1 7 ef
Ykf6 18 Ykg4 ± Petrosian-Lilienthal,
USS R 1 949) 1 6 .Q.d 2 Yka4 1 7 f4
b6 1 8 f5 ;!; l vkov-Darga, Leipzig
O L 1 960. I nstead of 1 2 ... YJtc7
1 2 ... �c7 ! ? deserves consideration.
(b3) 1 2 de de 13 .11c 4 ( 1 3 �xeS?
�c7 ++) 1 3 ... E!d8 ( 1 3 ... �c7
14 .Q.g5 ;!;) 1 4 .Q.d4 �xd5 (Also
possible is 14 ... �c7 1 5 c4 .Q.g4
16 h3 �cxd5 1 7 cd .Q.xf3 1 8
YJtxf3 �e8) 1 5 ed f6 1 6 c4 �c7
Four Knight's 43
1 7 a4 �e8 = Fichti-Rabar, 1 959.
(b4) 1 2 d 5 �c7 1 3 .Q.d3 b5 ( B l ack
had other playable possibilities, for
example : 1 3 ... �fe8 1 4 c4 .Q.d 7 1 5
E!b 1 E!b8 1 6 c3 g6 1 7 Q.h6 llg7 =
Tarrasch-Euwe, Bad Kissingen 1 928
or 13 ... h6 1 4 c4 .Q.d 7 = Cortlever­
Keres, Buenos Aires 1 939) 1 4 c4
.Q.d7 1 5 .Q.g5 h6 1 6 llh4 E!fb8
17 �d2 �ce8 Barendrecht-van den
Berg, Amsterdam 1 950.
1 2 �h4
Or 1 2 .Q.fl �d7 (Worse is 1 2 ...
�f8 1 3 �h4 �g4 1 4 g3 Ykf6 1 5
f3 �h6 1 6 lle3 ± Botvinnik­
Reshevsky, H ague 1 948 ; or 1 2 ...
c5 1 3 d 5 �c7 14 c4 .Q.d7 1 5 a4
;!; Horenstein-Zami khovsky, USS R
1 95 8) 1 3 g3 �fd8 1 4 �h4 Yk f6 1 5
.Q.e3 �g6 1 6 �g2 c5 = Alexander­
Barcza, Munich 1 958.
12 �f8
1 3 g3
Or 1 3 �f5 .Q.xf5 14 ef c6 1 5
.Q.fl Ykc7 1 6 .Q.g5 �8d7 =.
13 .Q.h 3 =
The game Yurtaycv-Yusupov,
USSR 1 979, continued 1 4 a4 h6
1 5 .Q.fl ( 1 5 a5 ) 1 5 ... Q.xfl 1 6
=
�xf1 d5! 1 7 ed E!xd5 1 8 c4
E!dd8 1 9 Yke2 e4 20 f3 Ykd7 +
Black has taken over the initiative.
A2
4 �d4 (4 1)
An interesting counterattack,
worked out by Rub instei n . I t i s
based on a ful l y correct pawn
sacrifice and permi ts Black to
obtain a completely equal game.
There is a drawback to the m ove
4 ... �d4, however, and that i s
the d rawing possibility for White
after 5 �xd4 ed 6 e5, which is
44 Four Knight's
41
w (b 1 ) 6 f4 ( I t is impossible to recom·
not always profitable for the
player of the black pieces.
A21 5 4lxe5
A22 5 .Q.c4
A23 5 .Q.e2
A24 5 .Q.a4
The exchange 5 4lxd4 ed 6 e5
{no better is 6 4lxd5 7 ed -tkf6)
6 ... de 7 ef "ikxf6! usually lead s to
a d rawn position, but not 7 ... cd+?
8 .Q.xd2 "ikxf6 9 0-0 .Q.e7 1 0 Q.c3
-ttg 5 1 1 � e 1 ! *xb5 1 2 -ttg 4 ±
with a strong attack for White.
After 7 ... "ikxf6 ! 8 de .Q.c5 {Also
sufficient is 8 .. . -tke5+ 9 -tke2
"ikxe2+ 1 0 .Q.xe2 = ) 9 0-0 0-0 1 0
Q.xd7 �dB 1 1 -tkh5 ! .Q.xd7 1 2
"ikxc5 .Q.c6 is equal. Weak is 5 0-0?
4lxb5 6 4lxb5 c6 7 4lc3 d6 B d4
"ikc7 9 h3 b5 ! {9 ... .Q.e7 1 0 Q.e3
0-0 1 1 a4 .Q.e6 1 2 "ike2 =) 1 0 a3
a6 + Euwe.
A21
5 4lxe5 .Q.c5
We also examine the moves
5 ... 4lxe4 and 5 ... "ike7.
{a) 5 ... 4lxe4 6 4lxe4 4lxb5 7
4lxf7! -tke7 {7 ... �xf7 8 *h5+ g6
9 'flld 5+ �7 1 0 -tke5+ �B 1 1 "ikxb5
±) 8 4lxhB *xe4+ 9 o&>f1 4ld4 1 0
d3 "ikf5 1 1 h4 ± Bogoljubow-
Rubinstein, M atch 1 920.
(b) 5 ... 'flle 7 and further:
mend this move, which al lows
b l ack to obtain an attack ) 6 ...
4lxb5 7 4lxb5 d6 B 4lf3 'fllxe4+
(B ... 4lxe4 9 0-0 ±) 9 �f2 (9 'f!lc2
'fllx e2+ 1 0 �xe2 4ld5 + ) 4lg4+ 1 0
� 3 ( 1 0 �g1 'fllc6 1 1 -tke2+ .Q.e7
1 3 h3 'fllb 6+ 1 3 d4 4lf6 1 4 �h2
.Q.d7 +) 1 0 ... "ikg6 ( 1 0 .. . �dB
1 1 h3 4lh6 1 2 d4 Q.e7 1 3 �e1
-ttg6 14 �h2 :l: Bogoljubow­
Rubinstein, M atch 1 920) 1 1 4lh4
( 1 1 'flle 2+ �dB 1 2 �e1 lld7 1 3
4lbd4 4le3+ 14 �f2 �xc2 1 5
�xc2 'fllx c2 + Spielman n-Rubin·
stein, Baden-Baden 1 925) 1 1 ...
*h 5 1 2 h3 (There is no satisfactory
defence for White, i .e . : 1 2 4lxc7+
�dB 1 3 h3 4lf6 1 4 4lxaB "ikxh4+!
1 5 �xh4 4le4 ! 1 6 "ikg4 .Q.e7+ 1 7
'fllg 5 .Q.xg5+ 1 B fg h 6 1 9 g6 fg 20
4lf1 g5+ 21 �h5 4lg3+ wins; or
12 f5 g5! 13 4lf3 c6 14 4lc7+
�dB 1 5 4lxaB d5 +) 1 2 . . . 'fllx b5
1 3 hg g5 ! + .
{b2) 6 4lf3 4lxb5 { 6 . . . 4lxe4 7
0·0 4lxc3 B de 4le6 :l:) 7 4lxb5
'fllxe4+ 8 'flle 2 9 �xe2 4ld5 1 0
�e1 f6 =.
6 0-0
On 6 .Q.e2 Black shou ld continue
6 ... 0-0! w ith an initiative for the
sacrificed pawn.
6 0-0
7 .Q.e2 'flle 7
8 4lf3 4lxe4
9 4lxd4 .Q.xd4
1 0 4lxe4 'fllx e4
1 1 c3 .Q.b6
1 2 d4 d5
1 3 .Q.d3 'fllh 4
 Four Knight's 45

1 4 'tt f3 c6 1 0 .cte2 {lxe2 1 1 'ttx e 2 0-0-0 1 2

1 5 .Q.f4 Q.g4 = d3 'tte6 1 3 0-0 {ld5 1 4 !;tel {lf4
Chekhov-Kupreich i k , Otborochnu ( 1 4 ... §he8 1 5 .Q.d2 f5 1 6 'ttd l
1 977. {lxe3 1 7 .ctxe3 Q.xe3 1 8 § xe3
A22 'ttb 6 ! Schubert-Aristov, corres
5 .ctc4 (42} 1 960) 1 5 'ttd 1 Q.h5 with sufficient
initiative compensating for B l ack's
sacrificed pawn. Schubert-Henrick­
sen, cor res 1 960.
6 'tt xf3 d6
7 0-0 .Q.e7
8 d3 0-0
9 'tte 2 .Q.e6
1 0 f4 .Q.xc4
1 1 de ef
1 2 .Q.xf4 {ld7
1 3 !;tadl !
White stands a little better.
Ermolinsky-Loginov, Leni ngrad Ch
5 {lxf3+ 1 979.
It is considered, that this move A23
gives B l ack equal chances, but such 5 .Q.e2
an opinion is not fully correct. The This passive m ove does not present
active continuation 5 . .. .ctc5 Black with any d i fficul ties.
deserves attention, in connection 5 d6
with the sacrifice of a pawn, which Also possible is 5 ... {lxf3+ 6 bf3
was seen in the p raxis of Alekhine. .Q.c5 7 d 3 d6 =
We exam ine the m ove 5 ... .ctc5. 6 d3 {lxe2
( a) 6 d3 d6 (The pawn sacrifice Or 6 ... c5 7 0-0 .Q.e7 8 {lel 0-0
6 ... d5 7 {lxd5 {lxd5 8 .ctxd 5 9 f4 ef 1 0 .Q.xf4 d 5 Maroczy­
=

.ctg4 is incorrect. Now not 9 Axf7+? Stoltz, Bled 1 93 1 .

*f8 1 0 c3 {lxf3+ 1 1 gf Ah3 1 2 7 'ttx e2 c6
Ab3 'tth 4 + but 9 .cte3 ! !) 7 {la4 8 d4 'ttc7
.ctb6 8 {lxb6 {lxf3+ 9 'ttxf3 ab = . 9 Ag5 Ae7
( b ) 6 {lxe5 'tte 7! ( 6 ... 0-0 7 {ld3 1 0 a4 Ag4
!) 7 {lf3 (Weaker is 7 {ld3 d5 8 1 1 de de
Axd5 {lxd5 9 {lxd5 'ttxe4+ 1 0 1 2 h3 .Q.e6
{le3 .Q.d6 1 1 0-0 {le6 1 2 {lel 1 3 Q.xf6 Q.xf6 +
0-0-0 1 3 c3 {lf5 + N imzowitsch­ Thanks to the two bishops B l ack 's
Aiekhine, St. Petersburg 1 9 1 4. chances are p referab le. Liublinsky­
Black 's initiative in the given Makarychev, USS R 1 978.
position is m ore important than A24
the p awn) 7 ... d 5 ! 8 {lxd5 Ag4 5 .Q.a4 (43}
46 Four Knight's
The most restricting con tin-
uation for White.
5 ... .Q.c5
(a) 5 ... �xf3+ 6 itxf3 ( I nteresting
is 6 gf! ? .Q.c5 7 f4) 6 ... c6 7 0-0
d6 8 d3 .Q.e6 9 ite2 �d7 1 0 .ll b 3
�c5 1 1 f4 �xb3 1 2 ab ef 13
.Q.xf4 .Q.e7 1 4 d4 0-0 1 5 d5 ;t; .
(b) S .•. c6 6 �xeS dS 7 0-0 Q.d6
8 f4 0-0 and Black's i n itiative
compensates for the pawn Euwe. -
6 �xeS
Also possible is 6 0-0 0-0 7 d3
c6 and now:
(a) 8 �xd4 ed 9 �e2 d5 =
(b) 8 �xeS d6 9 �f3 .Q.g4 1 0 .Q.e3
�xf3+ 1 1 gf .Q.h3 1 2 �e1 �hS 1 3
'Oth 1 ith4 1 4 d 4 .Q.b4 with a d anger­
ous initiative for B l ack.
(c) 8 .Q.gS h6 9 .Q.h4 gS 10 Q.g3
�xf3 1 1 itxf3 d6 =.
(d) 8 h3 d6 9 �xd4 .Q.xd4 1 0 �e2
.Q.b6 1 1 �g3 �e8 1 2 .Q.b3 �c7 1 3
.Q.e3 �e6 1 4 c3 g6 1 S .Q.xe6 Q.xe6
1 6 d4 dS Botvinnik-Fine, AVR 0
= 1 4 b4 ± or 1 1 ... c6 1 2 g3 ite4
1 938.
6 0-0
6 ... ite7 7 �d3 �xe4 8 0-0
�xc3 9 de �e6 1 0 �xeS itxcS
1 1 .Q.e3 ite7 12 itd2 0-0 1 3 Q.bS
dS 14 �ae1 c6 1 S Q.d3 .Q.d7 1 6
c4 ;!; Vinokurov-Matsu kevich , USS R
1 974.
7 �d3
(a) 7 d3 d S ! 8 Q.g5 c6 9 itd2 (9
.Q.h4 �e8 1 0 f4 �e6 1 1 .llg 3 .Q.d4
+ ) 9 ... �e8 1 0 f4 b5 1 1 .Q.b3 h6
1 2 .Q.h4 �xe4 ! + Tarrasch -Rubin·
stein, San Sebastian 1 9 1 2.
(b) 7 �f3 d 5 ! 8 �xd4 .ll x d4 9 0-0
(9 �xd 5 �xe4 1 0 �e3 .Q.xe3 + )
9 ... �xe4 (also possible is 9 . . . de)
1 0 �xe4 de 1 1 d3 ed 1 2 itxd3
.Q.e6 Gavashi-Kmoch, 1 930.
=
7 llb6 (44)
8 e5
Capablanca's move. We look at
other continuations for White.
44
(a) 8 f3? d 5 9 �f2 de 1 0 fe �g4 !
1 1 �xg4 ith4 1 2 g3 itxg4 1 3
itxg4 .Q.xg4 1 4 d3 f5 +.
(b) 8 0-0 d 5 9 �xd5 (9 ed .Q.g4 +)
9 ... �xdS 1 0 ed and further:
(b1 ) 1 0 ... ith4 1 1 ..th 1 Q.f5 ! ( 1 1
... .Q.g4 1 2 f3 .Q.xf3 1 3 gf �f5
1 3 f3 itd5 1 4 �f4 itd6 1 5 c3 �f5
1 6 d4 ± Goldenov-Cherepanov,
USS R 1 964) 1 2 �eS f6 1 3 �f3
�xf3 1 4 itxf3 itc4 1 S �e1 ( 1 S d3
itxa4 1 6 itxfS itxc2 + ) 1 S ... .Q.xc2
=
 Four Knight's 47

{b2} 1 0 ... itxd5 ! 1 1 �f4 {1 1 c3 Black shou ld have played 1 5 . . . de

ite4 + or 1 1 �e1 itc4 +) 1 1 ... 1 6 de �c7 + .
itg5 ! 1 2 d 3 �g4 1 3 �d 5 ith5 1 4 9 d6
�e7+ *h8 1 5 itd2 .Q.c5 + . 1 0 ed �f6 !
(c) 8 �f4 d 5 ( 8 ... �xe4 9 �xe4 After 1 0 ... �xd6 1 1 *h 1 c6
§e8 10 d3 f5 1 1 c3 �c6 1 2 �b3+ ( 1 1 . .. f5 1 2 f4 ;!; or 1 1 ... .Q.f5 1 2
*h8 1 3 ith5 ! ± ) 9 d 3 (9 �fxd5 ? �f4 c6 1 3 d 3 ;!; ) 1 2 �f4 White
�xd5 1 0 �xd5 ith4! 1 1 0-0 Q.g4 easily neutralizes Black's initiative.
1 2 ite 1 �f3+ + ) and further: 1 1 d7
(c 1 ) 9 ... .Q.g4 (9 ... de 1 0 de .Q.g4 Dangerous is 1 1 de itd6 ! and
1 1 itd3 ;!; ) 1 0 f3 �h5 1 1 �xh5 Black has a strong attack with
( 1 1 fg ith4+ 1 2 g3 �xg3 1 3 �g2 threats of �g4, .Q.g4, and .Q.c7.
itf6 1 4 hg �f3+ 1 5 *e2 �d4+ 11 .Q.xd7
Yl-Yl) 1 1 ... �xh5 1 2 �xd5 c6! 1 2 .Q.xd7 itxd 7
( 1 2 ... ith4+ 1 3 g3 �xf3+ 1 4 1 3 �e1 §ae8
itx f3 .Q.xf3 1 5 gh .Q.xh 1 1 6 *e2 ! 1 4 d3 �g4!
c6 1 7 �f4 .Q.c7 1 8 .Q.e3 .Q.xf4 Blac k 's initiative compensates
1 9 bf4 .Q.g2 20 §g1 .Q.h3 21 .Q.h6 for the sacrificed pawn, for ex­
± Canai-Eiiskases, Kesckemet 1 933) ample : 1 5 �f3 �xf3+ 1 6 itxf3
1 3 �xb6 (Both 1 3 �f4? �xf3+ 1 4 �xf2 1 7 �d5 itxd5 1 8 itxd5
gf ith4+ + and 1 3 �e3 ith4+ 1 4 �3++ 1 9 *h 1 �f2+ Yl-Yl.
*f1 f5 ! + are bad) 1 3 . . . ab 1 4 B ,
.Q.b3 ith4+ 1 5 *f1 �xb3 1 6 cb f5 4 d4 (45)
1 7 ite1 itd8 1 8 ite2 c5 Estrin-
Karker, corres 1 968/72. I n this 45
complicated position the chances 8
stand approximately equal. Black's
initiative compensates for the sacri­
ficed m aterial .
(c2) 9 . . . c6 1 0 h3 (The variations
1 0 .Q.e3 �g4 1 1 itd 2 de 1 2 �xe4
�xe3 1 3 fe �f5 + and 1 0 0-0 llg4!
do not o rganize the White position,
but 10 f3 deserves consideration ­
Keres) 1 0 ... §e8 1 1 0-0 de 1 2 de
�xe4 1 3 �xe4 §xe4 14 c3 Beck- = Black has two active continu-
Spiel mann, Helsinki 1 935. at ions :
8 �e8 B 1 4 ... .ll b 4
9 0-0 B2 4 ... ed
Or 9 �d5 ? ! d6 1 0 c3 �f5 The second of these is more prom-
1 1 �3b4 c5 ! 1 2 �xb6 ab 1 3 cd cb
1 4 0.{) �d3 1 5 §e1 Bednarski­
Pytel, Dortmund 1 975, and now 4 .Q.b4
 48 Four Knight's
This m ove was recommended by
Bogoljubow ; it leads to a sharp
struggle, requ i ring a good knowledge
of theory on the part of both sides.
S �xeS is the best answer for
White, after which Black cannot
equalize easily. In tournament
praxis the move S dS is also fre·
quently seen. We examine both of
these continuations.
B1 1 S dS
B f2 S �xeS
81 1
S dS �e7
6 �xeS (46)
46
8 7 .Q.d3
Less strong is 6 Ad3 d6 where
Black at least equalizes the p l ay .
F o r example: 7 0-0 Axc3+ 8 be
�g6 9 �e1 0-0 1 0 g3 ,g_g4 1 1 f3
Ah3 1 2 §f2 �d7 1 3 Afl Axf1
1 4 §xf1 fS + Radulov-Smejkal ,
Moscow 1 977.
6 0-0
Weaker is 6 d6 7 AbS+!
{7 �f3 �xe4 8 "11'd 4 Axc3+ 9 be
�f6 10 Ae2 AfS = Drimer-Kozma,
Reykjav i k 1 9S7 or 7 �d3 Axc3+
8 be �xe4 9 �f4 �fS 1 0 Ab2 0-0
1 1 Ad3 l:le8 1 2 0-0 "l!tgS 1 3 �e6
Axe6 1 4 Axe4 Ad7 = Nordstrem­
Sederlind, corres 1 974) and now:
(a) 7 ... c6 8 de 0-0 9 �d7! �xe4
(9 ... �xd 7 1 0 cd �xe4 1 1 "11'd 4
�xc3 1 2 "11'x b4 ± ) 1 0 0-0! { 1 0
�xf8 �xc8 ! Keres) 1 0 .. . .ll x c3
( 1 0 ... �xc3 1 1 be Axc3 1 2 cb
�xb7 1 3 § b 1 ± Mayer-Gerber,
corres 1 968) 1 1 �xf8 .Q.aS 1 2
�xh7 '<t>xh 7 1 3 .Q.d 3 fS 1 4 "11'h S+
'<t>g8 1 S �xe4 fc 1 6 .Q.gS ! ±
Mayer-F echncr, corres 1 968.
(b) 7 ... '<t>f8 8 �d3 (8 �f3 �xe4
9 "11'd 4 �xc 3 1 0 be Q.cS 1 1 "11'h4
,g_d7 =) .Q.xc3+ 9 be �xe4 1 0 "11' f3
�f6 1 1 Ac4 ( 1 1 c4? ,g_g4 1 2 "11' f4
c6! + Hort-Trifunovic, Sarajevo
1 964) 1 1 ... h6 1 2 0-0 t Perich­
Retgen, corres 1 967.
The variation 7 "11'd 4 ,g_xc3+
8 be §e8 ! 9 .Q.gS �exd S 1 0 ed d6
= lead s to an approximately equal
position whe re Blac k 's chances
are no worse.
7 �exd 5
7 ... "11'e 8 8 "11'e 2 c6 9 dc d5 1 1)
c b .Q.xb7 1 1 .Q.d2 t M natsakan ian .
8 ed §e8
9 0-0 §xeS
1 0 d6
Or 1 0 f4 §e8 1 1 "11' f3 c6 1 2 de
be = Kuzmichev-Kiovan , USSR
1 963.
10 .Q.d6
1 1 �bS Q.f8
1 2 .Q.f4 §eS
1 3 ,g_e3 §eS
1 3 ... §c6? 1 4 §xa7 t M natsak­
anian-Kiovan, USSR 1 963.
14 ,g_f4 =
I t is possible to repeat moves
_ _here and draw.
B 1 i'
S �xeS (4 7)
 Four Knight's 49

This move promises more for 1 0 f3 .Q.d7 1 1 g4 .Q.c6 1 2 .Q.g2 ;l;

White than 5 d 5 . Keres) 1 0 ... "f!JaS ( 1 0 ... "f!Je6 1 1
§e 1 ! .Q.xc3 1 2 .Q.xc3 "f!Jxa2 1 3
47 .Q.xf6 gf 1 4 "f!Jd4 ± with the threat
8 of §e3) 1 1 a3 .Q.xc3 1 2 .Q.xc3 ±
Rosen-Vise loch, corres 1 967.
(b) S ..• �xe4 6 "f!Jg4 �xc3 7 "f!Jxg7
§f8 (7 ... "f!J f6 8 "f!Jxf6 �e4+ 9
c3 �xf6 1 0 �xc6 ;l; Estrin-K iselev,
USS R 1 96S) 8 a3 and further :
(b1 ) 8 ... .Q.aS (8 . . . "f!Jh4? ) 9 �xc6
de 1 0 ab .Q.g4 1 1 "f!JeS+ "f!Je7 1 1
"f!Jxe7+ �xe7 1 2 �d2 �fS 1 3
.Q.xc3 .Q.xc3+ 1 4 be .Q.xc2 1 S �d2
5 0-0 .Q.g6 =. This variation was analysed
Recommended by Grandmaster by Bogoljubow in his day, but i s
I . Zaitsev. We consider other stil l awaiting its p ractical tests.
continuations. (b2) 8 ... �xd4 9 ab �xc2+ 1 0
(a}' 5 ... "f!Je7 6_Jtq3 (Also possible *d2 �xa 1 1 1 *xc3 aS ! 1 2 .Q.c4
is 6 �xc6 "f!Je4+ 7 �e2 �xc3+ ab+ 1 3 �d 2 ( 1 3 *d 3? d S ! 1 4
8 bc "f!Jxc6 9 0-0 dS 1 0 § b 1 a6 1 1 .Q.bS+ c 6 1 S �xc6 .Q.fS + + . The
.Q.a3 �e4 1 2 c4 ! �c3 1 3 "f!Je 1 game Polovod in- Ryutman, USSR
�xb 1 1 4 cd "f!Jf6 1 5 "f!Jxb 1 �d8 1 978 continued : 14 ... c6 1 S §e1
1 6 .Q.f3 and White has an attack, ( 1 S �xc6 wou ld also have won)
Steiner-Novikov, USS R 1 97 3 ; B l ack 1 S ... .Q.e6 1 6 �xc6 be 1 7 §xe6+
should have played 7 ... de 8 0-0 *d7 1 8 §xc6 "f!Je7 1 9 *d 1 §ab8
.Q.xc3 9 be 0-0 1 0 �d3 "f!Jh4 w ith 20 .Q.f4 1 -0. I n this variation Black
chances for bal ancing the game.) should have pl ayed 1 2 ... "f!Je7 !
6 ... �xeS 7 de "f!Jxe5 8 .Q.d2 0-0 (instead of ab+) accord ing to
9 0,0-0 and further: Keres, and it is unclear whether
{al ) 9 ... .Q.xc3 1 0 .Q.xc3 "f!J f4+ White has a decisive attack.
( 1 0 ... "f!Jxe4 1 1 "f!Jg3 ± ) 1 1 §d2! 6 "f!Jd 3
( 1 1 *b 1 �xe4 1 2 g3 �xc3+ 1 3 Or 6 �xc6 de 7 eS (7 .Q.bS?
+
"f!Jxc3 "f!Jxf2 1 4 "f!Jxc7 d 6 D rimer­ §e8 8 "f!Jd3 .Q.fS 9 f3 �xe4 +) 7 ...
Portisch, Hastings 1 969) 1 1 ... d S �e4 8 ttd 3 �f5 9 a3 .Q.xc3+ 1 0
(1 1 ... �xe4? 1 2 "f!Jxd4 ± ± or 1 1 . . . be cS with a sharp position and
"f!Jxe4 1 2 "f!Jg3 :t) 1 2 e d §e8 1 3 b3 chances for both sides. A n alysis
.Q.fS ( 1 3 ... �e4 14 "f!Jd4 "f!Jh6 1 S by I . Zaitsev.
.Q.bS ! ± ) 1 4 "f!Jf3 § e 1 + 1 S �b2 6 §e8
ttgS ( 1 S ... "f!Jxf3 1 6 gf �h3 1 7 7 .Q.d2 dS
.Q.g2 ± ) 1 6 h4 "f!Jg6 1 7 d6! Bel l on­ After 7 ... �xeS 8 de §xeS
Lukacs, Bucharest 1 978. 9 0-0-0 ;l; White has the i nitiative.
(a2) 9 ... d6 1 0 f4 (Also good is 8 �xc6 be
 50 Four Knight's

9 e5 c5 nament praxis by Yugoslav chess­

1 0 0-0-0 �g4 players in the years 1 945-1 946.
1 1 .ll e 1 Very sharp play arises in these
Worse is 1 1 ..lle 3 c6 1 2 � b 1
variations. B l ack has several good
�xe3 1 3 l'he3 c d 1 4 't'txd4 l'tb6
continuations: accepting the gambit
1 5 l'txb6 ab 1 6 a3 ..llb 5 1 7 l:!d2
with B21 1 5 ... �xe4 or choosing
§xeS + Polovodin-Berkowitz, Din­ a more peaceful continuation B21 2
amo Ch 1 979. 5 ... .ll e 7.
11 l'tg5+ We d iscuss other vari at ions very
1 2 *b 1 ;!; briefl y : 5 ... ..ll x d5, 5 ... h6, 5 . . . d6
Blac k 's small initiative does not
and 5 ... �b4. The best of these is
compensate for the absent pawn. fully acceptable for Black - 5 ..
.

For example : 1 2 ... l:!b8 1 3 f4 �b4.

't'tf5 ( 1 3 ... l'txf4 1 4 �xd5 ± )(a) 5 ... �xd5 6 ed U4+ (The
1 4 h 3 't'txd 3 1 5 §xd 3 ;!; Yurtayev­
continuation 6 ... �b4 7 �xd4 !
Kochiev, USSR 1 979. �xd5 8 �f5 �e7 9 .llg 5 f6 1 0
B2 .ll xf6 gf 1 1 l'th5+ �g6 1 2 0-0-0
4 ed d6 1 3 �h4 ..llg7 1 4 .ll c 4 gives
White has two practical con­ White a dangerous attack. Bellon­
tinuations: the move 5 �d5 ( B 1 ) J amieson, Wijk aan Zee 1 977)
leads to the Belgrade Gambit, 7 .lld 2 l'te7+ 8 l'te2 .llx d2+ 9 *xd 2
while the move 5 �xd4 ( B2 ) l'txe2+ 1 0 llxe2 �b4 ( 1 0 ... �e7
resem bles positions o f the Scotch 1 1 d6 cd 1 2 �xd4 ± Traj kovic­
Game, and in several theoretical Radovic , Yugoslavia 1 945) 1 1
works it is considered as a variation
l:!he1 0-0 ( 1 1 . . . �xd5 1 2 Q.c4+
of that opening. �e7 1 3 !:!e2 d5 1 4 llxdS Q.e6
B21 1 5 ..llx e6 ± ) 1 2 d6 cS 1 3 Q.c4 b5
5 �d5 (48) 1 4 llxb5 I:! b8 1 5 .ll c4 .lla 6 1 6 �eS
;!; Polovod in-Mark Tseitl in, Lenin­
grad Ch Play Off 1 979.
48 ( b) 5 ... h6 6 �xd4 �xe4 7 �bS
8 ..llc S 8 l'tg4 0-0 9 .llx h6 ± Radoicic­
G i igoric , Yugoslavia 1 945.
(c) 5 ... d6 6 �xd4 �xe4? (Better
is 6 ... .ll e 7) 7 �bS ! ..lle6 Valenti-
Passerotti, Regio Emilia 1 977/78
and now White h ad to p l ay 8
�dxc7+ *d7 9 �xa8 ± .
'(a} 5 ... �b4 (A move which can be
recommended for Black) and now:
(d 1 ) 6 ..llc4 �bxd5 7 ed ..ll b4+ 8
The Belgrade Gambit was an­ ..lld 2 l'te-/ + 9 l'te2 = .
alyzed and i ntroduced into tour- (d2) b �xd4? �xe4 7 fitS (7 l'te2

�xd5 8 -che4+ 'flle 7 +) 7 .. . c6
8 �xb4 �xb4+ 9 c3 'fll f6 + Tai ­
Averbakh, Youth Teams Ch USS R
1 954.
(d3) 6 �xf6+ 'fllxf6 7 .Q.c4 (7 a3
�c6 8 �g5 'fllg 6 9 Q.d 3 Tai­
Zhdanov, Latrian Ch 1 952 and now
9 ... d6 + ) 7 ... Q.c5 8 0-0 0-0?
(8 ... d6! + ) 9 c5 'fllg 6 1 0 a3 �c6
1 1 b4 �b6 1 2 b5 �aS 1 3 Q.d3 ±
Polovod in-Korelov, USSR 1 978.
821 1
5 �xe4
6 'flle 2
6 .Q.c4 deserves consideration,
giving rise to interesting compl i ­
cations, e.g. 6 ... � e7 ( 6 . . . �c5? !
7 �g5 f6 8 �h4 hS 9 �g6 §h7
and White has a decisive attack,
Traj kovic-Heinrichsen, corres 1 966/
67) 7 �xd4 0-0 8 �b5 ! �b4 ? !
(Better, according t o N u n n , is 8 . . .
�eS ! 9 �bxc7 �xc4 1 0 �xa8 b5!
oo ) 9 c3 �xf2 ! ? ! 1 0 *h S ! �xh1 1 1
cb �xb4 1 2 �g5 !/± ± Kenworthy­
Van dcr Stcrrcn, Ramsgatc 1 98 1 .
The strongest way to continue
the attack. We consider other
6 fS (49)
7 �g5
Four Knight's 51
possibili ties:
(a) 7 �d2 (7 g4? �c7! 8 gf �xd5
9 'fllxe4+ 'flle 7 + or 7 Q.g5 .Q.e7 + )
7 . . . d 3 ! 8 'fllx d3 �b4 9 �xb4
.Q.xb4+ 1 0 c3 .Q.cS 1 1 �xe4 'file 7 + .
(b) 7 �f4 d6 8 0-0-0 Q.e6 ( 8 ...
�e5? 9 §xd4 c6 1 0 �xe S ! de 1 1
§xe4! �d6 1 2 §xeS+ <&>f7 1 3 �c7 !
'fllx c7 1 4 'fllh 5+ 1 -0 Bel lon-Wagman ,
Cirel l a d i Diamante 1 977) 9 �xd4
�xd4 1 0 §xd4 Sopkov-Kamishov,
USS R 1 950 and now 1 0 . .. c6 !
+ i.e. 1 1 �c3 'fll f6 1 2 �xe4 'fllx d4
1 3 �xd6+ <&>d7 + + .
7 d3!
7 . . . �e7? 8 �xe4 fe 9 'fllxe4
0-0 1 0 �d 3 g6 1 1 .Q.h6 §e8 1 2
0-0 ± Karaklajic-Potacman, Yugo­
slavia 1 946.
8 cd
8 'fllx d3 ? �b4 +
8 �d4
9 'fllh 5+
A curious variation is 9 �xe4 ! ?
�xe2 1 0 �g5 �e7 1 1 �xe7
'fllx e7 1 2 �xc7 fc 1 3 �xc8 ed 1 4
�xe2 de 1 5 �d6+ cd 1 6 *xe2 =
9 g6
1 0 'fllh 4 c6
Bad is 1 0 . . . �c2+? 1 1 *d 1
�xa 1 1 2 de c6 1 3 ef (Very strong
is 1 3 �b5 ! ± Abloukhov-Zaslavsky,
corres 1 966) 1 3 ... cd 14 Q.d 3 'fll f 6
1 5 fg! h6 1 6 §e1 + �e7 1 7 'fllg 3
0-0 Slastenin-Aronin, USSR 1 955
and now 18 g7 would have won.
1 1 de
1 1 �c3? �xc3 1 2 'fllx d4 'flle 7+
1 3 .Q.e3 �g7 +
11 cd
1 2 ed (50)
Worse is 1 2 ef �xf5 1 3 'fllg 4
�c5 1 4 �d 3 'flle 7+ 1 5 *d 1 0-0 +
 52 Four Knight's

enough for a draw, for example

50 1 6 ... *xe7 1 7 {)e4+ *e6 1 8 itf6+
8 *dS 1 9 {)c3+ *c5 20 b4+! *xb4
and further:
(a) 21 § b 1 + *aS 22 .Q.d2 itfl + =

Lubensky-Sch ipanets, Poland 1 955.

(b) 21 itd6+ �aS (21 . . . *xc3
22 ita3+ {)b3 23 *b2+ �d3 24 ab
itd5 25 §a4 winning - Slastcnin­
Selivanovsky, USS R 1 960) 22 *a3+
*b6 23 itd6+ *aS = Barad i­
Larsson, corres 1 960/6 1 .
A complex position with chances 821 2
for both sides has arise n . S .Q.e7 (5 1)
12 itaS+ This peacefu l move is anothe r
(a) Bad is 1 2 ... {)c2+? 1 3 *d 1 good response for Black against the
{)xa1 . Now White obtains a strong Belgrade Gam b it.
attack with 1 4 itd4 §g8 d6 ( Keres)
or 14 .Q.b5 (Siastenin) .
(b) 1 2 ... .Q.g7! ? 1 3 itg3 ( 1 3 *d 1 51
h6 1 4 {)f3 {)xf3 1 S itxd8+ *xd8
w
1 6 gf .Q.d4 1 7 §g1 gS 1 8 .Q.d3 d6
+) 1 3 ... 0-0 (After 1 3 ... {)c2+
1 4 *d 1 {)xa1 1 S .llc4 White
develops a strong attack) 1 4 .Q.d3 ? !
(Keres recommended 1 4 d6) 1 4 . ..
*as 1 S *f1 b6! 1 6 ith3 h6 1 1
{)f3 itxd S + Olkonov-Yudovich,
USS R 1 949.
1 3 *d 1
After 1 3 .Q.d2 ita4 1 4 itg3 f4 !
1 S itc3 (1 S .Q.xf4? {)c2+ 1 6 *d2 6 {)xd4
.Q.b4+ 1 7 *d3 {)xa1 + Ablou khov­ (a) 6 .Q.c4 ( 6 llbS d6 7 {)xd4 .Q.d7
Nenashkov, corres 1 96S) 1 S . . . 8 0.0 {)xd4 ) 6 ... 0-0 7 0-0 d6
=

.llg 7 the struggle turns in Black's 8 {)xd4 {)xd4 9 itxd4 {)xd 5 1 0

favour. .Q.xdS .Q.f6 = .
13 itxdS (b) 6 .Q.f4 and further:
1 4 .llc 4! itxc4 (b 1 ) 6 ... d6 7 {)xd4 {)xdS (7 ...
1 S §e1 + .Q.e7 0-0 8 {)bS {)xdS 9 ed .Q.gS?
1 S ... *d8? 1 6 {)e6++ *e8 1 7 1 0 .Q.xgS itxgS 1 1 itd2 §e8+
{)d8+ ± ± . 1 2 *d 1 ! ± Bellon-Pomar, Las
1 6 §xe7::t Palmas 1 97S) 8 ed {)xd4 9 itxd4
White's attack i s only good .Q.f6 1 0 itb4 0-0 1 1 0-0-0 .Q.fS

1 2 f3 ;l; to be fol lowed by g4.
Bellon-Szmetan, Wijk aan Zee 1 977.
{b2) 6 ... Q.Q 7 llxc7 (7 <ilxc7?
<ilh5 +) 7 ... lte8 8 <ilx f6+ .ll xf6
9 lte2 lte6 1 0 e5 .1le7 1 1 a3 b6 1 2
0-0-0 .llb 7 1 3 �b1 §ac8 1 4 .lld 6
.llx d6 15 ed ltxd 6 + Polovod i n ­
Lerner, USS R 1 979.
6 <ilxd 5
6 ... <ilxc4? 7 <ilf5 0-0 8 ltg4
wins.
7 ed <ilxd4
8 '*xd4 0-0
9 .lle 2 .Q.f6
1 0 ltd 1 d6
1 1 0-0 .Q.f5
1 2 lld 3 *d7
1 3 c3 § feB =
Sax-Karpov, Tilburg 1 979.
B22
5 <tlxd4 (52)
As has been mentioned previously,
several theoretical treatises rc legate
this variation to the Scotch Game .
We examine it here in the Four
Knights opening.
5 .Q.b4
The classical continuation . Of
the other continuations the move
5 ... <tlxe4 deserves consideration,
and has been analyzed recently by
Four Knight's 53
the Soviet M aster Matsu kevich . Also
to be considered is 5 ... llc5.
(a) 5 ... <ilxe4 (5 ... d6 6 ilb5 is
the Spanish Game) 6 <ilxe4 (6 <tlxc6
<ilxc3 7 <tlxd8 <tlxd 1 8 <ilxf7 �xf7
=) 6 ... lte7 7 f3 (Possible is 7
ild3 <tlxd4 8 0-0, where White
obtains an edge in development and
attacking chances in exchange for
the pawn) 7 ... d5 8 ilb5 (8 <tlxc6
be 9 *e2 de 1 0 ltxe4 ,he4 1 1
fe = Gud kov-Matsu kevich , USSR
1 974) 8 ... .lld 7 9 .llx c6 be 1 0 0-0
de 1 1 §e1 ( Better, in my opinion,
is 1 1 fe ! 0-0-0 1 2 *d3 ;!;) 1 1 0-0-0!
1 2 §xe4 lt f6 1 3 lte2 c5 1 4 <tlb3
.llc 6 = Popov-Hersch man, USS R
1 965.
(b) 5 ... .llc 5 6 ile3 ilb6 7 <tlxc6
(7 .lle 2 0-0 8 0-0 §e8 =) 7 ... be
8 e5 .llx e3 9 fe (9 ef .ll h 6 1 0 lte2+
�8 1 1 fg+ .ll x g7 1 2 0-0-0 *g5+ +
Bykhovsky-Lilienthal, USS R 1 958)
9 ... <ild 5 ! (9 ... <tlg8 1 0 ttg4 g6
1 1 lt f3 lte7 1 2 ilc4 ±) 1 0 <tlxd5
cd 1 1 ltxd5 lth4+ 1 2 �d 1 ( 1 2 g3?
ltb4+ +) 1 2 ... § b8, and Black has
sufficient compensation for the
pawn.
6 <ilxc6
6 ilg5? h6 7 ilh4 g5 8 <tlxc6
be 9 .llg 3 .ll x e4 1 0 *d4 .llx c3+
1 1 be 0-0! + .
6 be
Also possible is 6 ... ilxc3+ 7 be
de 8 *xd8+ (Better is 8 .lld 3 ;!;) 8
... *xd8 9 f3 .lle 6 1 0 llg5 *c8 1 1
..Q.d 3 <tld7 Krogius-Bronstein, USSR
1 960.
7 ..Q.d3
(a) 7 *d4 fle7 8 f3 .llc 5 9 fld3
§b8 1 0 <tla4 ..Q.b4+ 1 1 c3 lld6 +
Bondarevsky-Smyslov, U SS R 1 944.
54 Four Knight's
(b) 7 _g_d2 0-0 8 �d 3 d S 9 f3
de 1 0 �xe4 �xe4 1 1 fe �cS =
Alekhine-Aiexander, Margate 1 937.
7 d S (53)
The most active move. Also met
are :
(a) 7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 �e8 9 �gS h6
10 _g_h4 d6 ( 1 0 ... gS 1 1 �g3
_g_xc3 1 2 be �xe4 1 3 ithS 'lig7
1 4 _g_xe4 !he4 1 5 f4 ! ± or 1 1 ...
d6 12 eS! de 1 3 _g_xeS �g4 1 4
_g_g3 fS 1 5 h3 ± Pomar-Ljubojevic ,
Las Palm as 1 974) 1 1 f4 �b7 1 2
'lih 1 �xc3 1 3 b e cS 1 4 �e1 ;!;
Puc-Pian i nc, Yugoslavia 1 973.
(b) 7 ___ d6 8 _g_gs (8 0-0 ite7
9 �e2 _g_cs =) 8 ... ite7 9 0-0 h 6
1 0 � h4 g S 1 1 � g 3 <tlg4 1 2 _g_e2
<tieS 1 3 _g_hs 0-0 1 4 <tle2 _g_cs 1 5
'lih 1 <tlg6 Ku ksov-Mukhamedzianov,
!hF USS R Rural Ch 1 979. I n this
complex position White's chances
are preferable after 1 6 itd3 ;!;
• 1 4 0-0 �b8 1 5 �e1 �e6 1 6 f4 ±
53
w (b) 9 ... itxe2+ 1 0 'lixe2 cd ( 1 0 ...
8 ed
Weaker i s 8 eS (8 0-0? _g_xc3
9 be de 1 0 �e1 0-0 +) 8 ... <tlg4
9 _g_f4 (9 0-0 0-0 1 0 Q.f4 f6 ! +
or 1 0 h3 �xeS 1 1 Qxh 7+ '&>xh 7
1 2 ithS+ '&>g8 1 3 itxeS �e8 + ) and
further :
(a) 9 ... d4 1 0 itf3 de 1 1 0-0-0
�b8! ( 1 1 ... itdS ? 1 2 �e4 itxa2
1 3 _g_xc6 '3Jf8 1 4 �d8+ 'lie7 1 5
�gS+ f6 1 6 ef+ gf 1 7 �e1 + �e6
1 8 �xe1 +! ± ± Furmston-Poletayev,
corres 1 967) 1 2 _g_c4 ite7 unclear.
I t is not clear whether White's
attack is worth a piece. Horvat­
Perenyi, Zalacgerzger 1 972.
(b) 9 ... f6 ! By th is move Hlac�
obtains a good game without
difficulty. 1 0 h3 ( l O ef 0-0 + ) 1 0 ...
<tlxeS 1 1 �xeS fe 12 ith5+ '3Jf8
1 3 itxeS ite7 + .
8 cd
Black cannot equalize with 8 ...
ite7+ 9 ite2 (9 '3Jf1 cd 1 0 �gS c6
1 1 itf3 0-0 =) , i . e . :
(a) 9 . . . �xdS 1 0 itxe7+ 'lixe7
1 1 a3 �aS 1 2 b4! ( 1 2 �d2 <tlxc3 =)
1 2 . . . <tlxc3 ( 1 2 ... .Q.xb4 1 3 ab
<tlxc3 1 4 .Q.b2 ± Chern iak-Rellstab,
Reggio Em ilia 1 9S 1 ) 1 3 ba �d5
Chern iak- Fenoglio, Buenos Aires
1 949.
�c3 1 1 be cd 1 2 .Q.a3 :l; ) 1 1 �b5
�aS ( 1 1 ... '3Jd8 1 2 �d1 c6 1 3 c3:l;
Spielmann- Lasker, Moscow 1 935)
1 2 Q.f4 '3Jd8 13 §hd1 Cd 7 14 c4 :l;
Halafian-Muslimova, USSR 1 979.
(c) 9 ... cd 1 0 itxe7+ 'lixe7 ( 1 0 ...
_g_xe7 1 1 �bS 'lid8 1 2 0-0 .Q.d 7 1 3
_g_f4 <tle8 1 4 c4 §b8 1 3 b3 ;!;
Voskan i an-Listengarten, USSR
1 97S) 1 1 _g_d 2 c6 1 2 0-0-0 §d8
1 3 <tla4 _g_d6 1 4 �e3 'lif8 1 5 h3
h6 1 6 §he 1 ;l; Radulov-Pinter,
Pernik 1 978.
9 0-0 0-0
1 0 _g_gs
B21 1 0 ... .Q.e6
B22 1 0 ... c6

1 0 ... .Q.xc3 ! ? ( 1 0 ... �e7? 1 1
.Q.xf6 �xf6 1 2 "«rh5 g6 1 3 "«rxd 5
"«rxd5 1 4 �xd5 �xb2 1 5 lhb 1 ±
Lu tikov-Tarve, Parnu 1 971 ) 1 1 be
h6 1 2 11h4 "«rd6 ( 1 2 ... §e8 1 3 c4
!) 1 3 c4 ( 1 3 "«rf3 .Q.g4 1 4 "«rg3 "«rxg3
1 5 .Q.xg3 Y1-Y1 Hort-Vasiu kov,
Moscow 1 962) 1 3 . . . de 14 11xc4
"«r f4 1 5 .Q.xf6 "«rxf6 1 6 § b 1 Y1 -Y1
Trajkovic -Vasiukov, Belgrade 1 961 .
B22 1
10 .Q.e6 (54)
1 1 "«rf3
(a) 1 1 �xf6? "«rxf6 1 2 "«rh5 ( 1 2
�xd5 .Q.xd5 1 3 "«rh5 §fd8 wins) g6
1 3 �xd5 ? "«rd8 wins.
(b) 1 1 �e2 .Q.g4 ( 1 1 ... h6 1 2 .Q.h4
�d6 1 3 �d4 c5 = Keres) 1 2 c3
�e7 1 3 "«rc2 h6 1 4 �e3 .Q.d6 1 5
�d4 c5 1 6 �f5 .Q.xf5 1 7 11xf5
§fe8 1 8 §ad 1 "«rc7 ! Alexander­
= 13
Smyslov, Hastings 1 95 5 .
(c) 1 1 � b 5 and now:
(c 1 ) 1 1...�e7 1 2 �d4 (Also good
is 1 2 �f4 c5 1 3 �c7 §c8 1 4 �xe6
fe 1 5 "«re2 §c6 1 6 c3 ! Batni kov­
Sol ntsev, USS R 1 962) 1 2 . . . "«rd6
1 3 §e1 ( 1 3 "«r f3 ! ? c5 14 �xe6 fe
1 5 "«rh3 h 6 1 6 f4 :!: J anosevic­
Pirc, Yugoslavia 1 958) 1 3 ... �g4
1 4 g3 .Q.xg5 ( 1 4 ... �xf2? 1 5 .Q.xe7
Four Knight 's 55
�h3+ 1 6 '3>g2 "«rxe7 1 7 �xe6 wins)
1 5 �xe6 fe ( 1 5 ... �xf2 1 6 .Q.xh 7+!
'3>h8 1 7 *h5 fe 1 8 �f5+ �h6 1 9
§xe6 §xf5 20 "«rxf5 §f8 2 1
"«rxf2! ± ) 1 6 "«rxg4 .Q.f6 1 7 §e6 ± .
(b2) 1 1 ... c 5 1 2 c3 ( 1 2 a3 ..Q.a5
1 3 b4 cb 1 4 ab 11xb4 1 5 § xa7
§xa7 1 6 �xa7 h6! 17 �c6 "«rb6 =
Krogius-Shianovsky, USS R 1 960)
1 2 ... �a5 1 3 "«ra4 ( 1 3 b4 cb 1 4
cb ..Q.xb4 1 5 ..Q.xh 7+ '3>xh 7 1 6
"«rb 1 + '3>g8 1 Hhb4 §b8 + G abran ­
Bykov, USS R 1 970) 1 3 ... ..Q.b6
1 4 "«rh4 h6 1 5 �xh 6 gh 1 6 "«rxh6
c4 ( 1 6 ... �e4? 1 7 .Q.xe4 de 1 8
§ae 1 ..Q.f5 1 9 §e3 f6 20 §g3+
'1Jf7 21 "«rh5+ '3>e6 22 §d 1 ±
Rappoport-Mattiso n , corres 1 979)
1 7 "«rg5+ ( 1 7 �c2 �e4 +) 1 7 ...
'1Jh8 1 8 "«rh6 :!: l vkov-G i igoric ,
Buenos Aires 1 960.
11 .Q.e7
1 2 §ae 1 §b8
1 2 ... h6 1 3 �xh6 (leads to a
draw. Bette r is 1 3 �c 1 or 1 3 �d2)
1 3 ... gh 1 4 §xe6 fc 15 "«rg3+
'1Jh8 1 6 "«rg6 = Alekhi ne- Lasker,
Moscow 1 9 1 4.
1 3 b3
Less promising for White is 1 3
�d 1 c5 1 4 �f5 §b6 and B l ack has
a good game. Keres .
.Q.b4
1 4 11d2 "«rd 7
1 5 h3 ;!;
White 's chances are preferab le.
B222
10 c 6 (55)
1 1 �e2
Another possibility for White is
1 1 "«rf3, on which B l ack may
answer either 1 1 ... .Q.e7 or 1 1 ...
�d6, not fearing the doubling of
56 Four Knight 's
the pawns on the f file. We examine
the move 1 1 lt f3.
(a) 1 1 ... �e7 and fu rther:
(a1 ) 1 2 §ae1 h6 ( Keres considers
thi s move best; also possible is 1 2 ...
§b8) 1 3 �xh6 gh ( 1 3 ... d4? 1 4
�e4 gh 1 5 �xf6+ �xf6 1 6 lte4
wins) 1 4 lte3 d4 1 5 ltxh6 ltd6
1 6 ltg5+ *h8 1 7 §xe7 ( 1 7 §e5 ?
�d4! + ; 1 7 lth4+ *g7 1 8 �e4
�g8! + ) 1 7 ... ltxe7 = Wh ite m ust
settle for the forced draw 1 8 lth6+
*g8 19 ltg5+, since 1 8 �e4? �g8!
1 9 lth5+ *g7 20 f4 f5 wins for
Black - Euwe.
(a2) 1 2 h3 §e8 (M ore active is
1 2 ... §b8) 1 3 §fe l �e6 1 4 �e2
�d 7 1 5 �xe7 ltxe7 1 6 �d4 ltd6
1 7 § ad 1 ;t Radulov-Kovacs, Dec in
1 976.
(b) 1 1 ... �d6 1 2 bf6 ( 1 2 §ae 1
§b8 1 3 � d 1 �d7 1 4 b3 §e8 =
Czern iak-Kelwig, Leipz ig OL 1 960)
1 2 ... ltxf6 1 3 ltxf6 gf 1 4 §ad 1
( 1 4 �e2 c5 1 5 c4 de + Alexander­
Gi igori c , Hastings 1 956/57) 1 4 ...
�e6 15 b3 §fd8 16 �e2 c5 1 7
�g3 §ab8 1 8 �f5 §b6 = Hort­
Po rtisch, Monte Carlo 1 968.
11 �g4
1 2 h3
Also good is 12 c3 �e7 1 3 h3
�h5 14 lta4 �xe2 1 5 �xe2 �d7
1 6 �e3 ;t Kupreichi k-Tsesh kovsky,
USS R 1 978.
12 �h5
1 3 c3 �e7
1 4 ltc2 Q.xe2
1 5 ltxe2 §e8
1 6 §fe1 ;t
Mnatsakanian-VIad i m i rov, USSR
1 979.
As we see, Black has defin ite
difficulties ach ieving an equal game
in the fundamental variations 1 0 ...
�e6 (B2 1 ) and 10 . . . c6 (B22) .
I t i s possible to recommend for
Black the move 1 0 . . . �xc3 1 1 be
h6 1 2 �h4 ltd6 (instead of 1 0 . . .
�e6 o r 1 0 . . . c6) , and also the
little investigated continuation 5 ...
�c5 instead of 5 ... �b4.
6 H un garian Defence

1 e4 eS solid, if somewhat passive position.

2 {)f3 ?:lc6
3 .Q.c4
and now :
A 3 ... .Q.e7
B 3 ... d6
In as m uch as the Hungarian
Defence is the first of a series of
openings, Mising after 3 .Q.c4, it
makes sense to dem onstrate at
this point two infrequently seen
systems of play for Black against
3 .Q.c4.
(a) 3 ... ?:ld4 4 ?:lxd4 (Of course
not 4 ?:lxe S ? itgS S ?:lxf7? itxg2
6 �fl ite4+ 7 lle2 {)f3 mate)
4 ... ed S c3 ± or S 0-0 ± .
Nevertheless, thi s opening is fu lly
viable. I t h as been taken u p by the
lead ing chessplayers of the world.
The name of this openi ng comes
from the game Paris-Budapest,
corres 1 842/4S, which concluded i n
a victory for the Hungarian side.
3 ... d6 ( B) is also usually
considered part of the H ungarian
Defence.
w �g 1111 �·� · ­
56 A B...ELi11Jj l!J" •-.. •
W • i .. ;l � '] i .. i
'"B. - · - .. · • ·

(b) 3 g6 4 d41. ed S c3 (S ?:lxd4 � B

B � � • B
�
.Q.g7=)"s ... de 6 ?:lxc3 �g7 7 ttb3 B.AB. .ft B. •
ite7 8 ?:ldS itxe4+ 9 .Q.e2 ?:laS • • . {).
(9 ... "'d8 10 0-0 ! itxe2 11 .Q.gS+
.ft H .ft 0 0 .ft D.
-- - - -
f6 1 2 �fe 1 itxe 1 + 1 3 �xe1 fg
1 4 ?:lxgS ?:lh6 1 S ith3 � f8 1 6 ith4 " ��
�-�·l£l liS �, R
R. �
wins) 1 0 itd 1 ! ± .
A 4 d4
3 �e7 (56) After the qu ieter move 4 d 3 B lack
This continuation leads to the transposes into the Two Knight's
Hungarian Defence. It permits Defence by 4 ... ?:lf6 5 .Q.b3 0-0
B l ack to avoid the sharp variations 6 0-0 d5 =. The game Psakhis­
of the I talian Game, Evans Gambit, Chekhov, USSR 1 98 1 , continued
and Two K night's Defence. In the 7 {)bd2 de 8 de llc5 9 c3 a5 1 0
Hungarian Defence Black obtains a h 3 ite7 1 1 itc2 ?:lhS! 1 2 ?:lc4
58 Hungarian Defence
itf6 + and B l ack has taken over
the initiative.
4 d6
Also fu lly possible i s 4 ... ed
and further:
(a) 5 c3 {)a5! {S ... d 3 6 itb3 {)aS
7 .Q.xf7+ <&>f8 8 ita4 <&>f7 9 itxaS c6
1 0 {)eS+ <&>e6 1 1 {)xc6 ! itxaS 1 2
{)xaS ± favours White, Karaklaj i c ­
Knezevic, Zagreb 1 977) 6 itxd4
{)xc4 7 itxc4 {)f6 8 eS dS 9 ita4+
{)d7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 .Q.e3 {)cS =
Chigori n .
( b ) S {)xd4 d6 6 0-0 {)f6 7 {)c3
0-0. White 's position is p referable ,
but B l ack has chances to obtain
counterp l ay. For example:
{b1 ) 8 {)xc6 { Unzicker recommends
8 .Q.f4) 8 ... be 9 h3 {9 M4 ! ) 9 ...
!:le8 10 f4? d S ! 1 1 ed llc5+ 1 2
<&>h 1 cd 1 3 {)xd S {)e4 1 4 itf3
.Q.b 7 + Tervonen-Zaitsev, 1 976.
(b2) 8 {)de2 {)eS 9 llb3 c6 1 0 a4
itc7 1 1 h3 lle6 1 2 f4 {)g6 1 3
.Q.xe6 fe 1 4 {)d4 itd7 Levitz ky­
= 1 974 .
Sch lechter, Breslau 1 91 2.
{b3) 8 !:le1 {)eS (Possible i s 8 ...
{)xd4 9 itxd4 {)g4 ! ? 1 0 {)dS
.Q.h4 1 1 g3 c6 1 2 gh cd 1 3 Q.dS !
{)eS ! 1 4 .Q.e2 itc7 w ith a sharp
struggle and m utual chances. Rad­
ulov-Holmov, Budape't 1 9 70) 9
.Q.f1 {)g6 1 0 f4 a6 1 1 a4 cS 1 2
{)f3 b6 1 3 .Q.c4 llb 7 1 4 {)d S
bS! unclear, Chebanenko-Shofm an ,
Moldavia C h 1 979.
{b4) 8 h3 {)xd4 9 itxd4 c6 {Deser­
ving of attention is 9 ... {)d 7 1 0
{)dS {)b6 1 1 {)xe7H txe7 1 2 llb3
.Q.e6 1 3 .Q. f4 §fe8 14 .Q.xe6 itxe6
1 S §fe 1 fS = Bohosian--Holmov,
USS R 1 974) 10 a4 {)d7 1 1 .Q.e3
b6 1 2 §ad 1 'fJ/c7 1 3 f4 a6 1 4 §f3
bS 1 S llb3 <&>h8 1 6 §g3 f6 with a
compl icated struggle. Spassky-Hort,
Reykjav i k {match) 1 977.
A 1 5 de
A2 S {)c3
A3 S dS
A1
S de de
S ... {)xe S ? 7 {)xeS de 7 ithS ±
6 itxd8+
The exchange of queens is most
unp leasant for Black. We also look
at the move 6 Q.dS, recommended
by Grandmaster Bronstein.
(a) 6 ... .Q.d7 7 {)bd2 (Also good
is 7 {)gS .Q.xgS 8 ithS g6 9 itxgS
itxgS 1 0 .Q..x gS {)d4 1 1 {)a3
;J; Bronstein-Shcherbakov, USSR
1 9SS) 9 ... {)f6 ( Better is 7 ... {)f6
and then {)ge7) 8 {)c4 0-0 9 0-0
{)xdS 1 0 ed {)b4 1 1 {)exeS {)fS
1 2 {)d4 .Q.e4 { 1 2 ... itxdS 1 3 {)xfS
itxeS 1 4 *&4 ± ) 1 3 c4 .Q.d6 1 4
§ e 1 ± Timman - l vkov, Banja Luka
{b) 6 ... .Q..d 6 ! 7 {)gS {)h6 8 c3 {)e7
(8 ... itf6?! 9 itf3 itxf3 1 0 {)xf3
{lg4 1 1 {)bd2 {)d8 1 2 0-0 {)f6 1 3
.Q. b 3 :1; Mednis-Westeri nen, Solnok
1 97S) 9 .Q.b3 {)g6 1 0 g3 ite7 1 1
h3 .Q.d7 1 2 ite2 0-0-0 1 3 {)f3 {)cS
= Bronstein- Reshevsky, Petropolis
1 973.
6 .Q.xd8
7 {)c) a6
(a) 7 ... {)f6 8 .Q.e3 (also good is
8 .Q.bS ;J; Keres) 8 ... {)d7 {8 ...
0-0? 9 .Q.cS 1:1 e8 1 0 {)gS .Q.e6
1 1 {)xe6 fe 1 2 .Q.bS {)d7 1 3 .Q.xc6
± Yasyukov-Gheorghi u , M inala
1 9 74) 9 0-0-0 {)b6 1 0 Q.bS f6 1 1
a4 ! .Q.d7 { 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2 aS {)xaS
1 3 .Q.xcS ± ) 1 2 aS {)c8 1 3 a6 ±
 Hungarian Defence 59
Yasjukov-Garcia, Cienfuegos 1 975. 1 0 �d5! �bxd5 1 1 ed �d7 1 2 aS
(b) 7 ... f6 8 a3 �ge7 (8 ... �aS :t Lipnitsky-Petrosian, USS R 1 95 1 .
9 ..lla 2 b6 1 0 ..Q.e3 �b7 1 1 0-0-0 9 §e1 §e8
�d6 1 2 �d2 �e7 1 3 �c4 ± 1 0 b3 ed
Rossol i m o-Euwe, Bewerwijk 1 953) 1 1 �xd4 .Q.f8
9 .Q.e3 .Q.g4 1 0 0-0-0 �c8 1 1 § d 3 1 2 .Q.b2 �xd4
� d 6 1 2 .Q.a2 ..Q.e7 1 3 �d2 0-0-0 1 3 itxd4 ..ll e6
1 4 f3 .Q.d7 1 5 �d 5 � Bronstein­ 14 .Q.xe6 §xe6 :t
Kozlov, USS R 1 978. Sveshnikov-Holmov, USS R 1 974.
8 .Q.e3 Q.e6 ! ? A3
9 .Q.xe6 fe 5 dS (5 7)
10 0-0-0 h6 After this move a closed position
11 §d2 � arises, similar to that of the K ing's
Yasyu kov Tsesh kovsky, USSR I nd ian Defence.
1 975 . Further developments of the
game showed that some of Black's
�".,l. r.IB P .... .a..
difficul ties are fu lly surmountable : 5 7 . .. .. ""&"�
1 1 ... .Q.e7 1 2 �g1 �f6 1 3 f3 �h5 B � • .&. . ·-��.
... -
-. . .&.
... . .&. ...

� 4 � e 2 .Q.gs 1 5 .Q. xg5 hg 1 6

; ...,. e 7 --.
'LI d 1 1::1 d 8 1 3 c3 ....
• .. .. • •
A2 .. �
• � .!..!. o!). -
W1. � -
5 �c3 �f6 ·-'t· ft · •
5 ... .Q.g4 6 h3 ..Q.xf3 7 itxf3 B B B4JB
�f6 8 d5 �b8 9 Q.e3 �bd7 1 0 g4
� Alekhine-Breyer, Man nheim 1 9 1 4.
ft u B ft � . � u ft u �
6 h3 o.o � '-----"�
� 4J • w e � l::: � - �:!l
7 0-0
7 .Q.e3 �xe4 ! 8 �xe4 d5 9 ..Q.d3 5 �b8
de 1 0 ..Q.xe4 ed =. 6 .Q.d3
7 a6 On 6 h3 Black should not p lay
(a) 7 ... �xe4? ! 8 �xe4 d5 9 6 ... f5? 7 ef ..Q.xf5 8 �c3 �f6 9
.Q.xd 5 ! (9 �c3 de 1 0 d5 e4! 1 1 .Q.d3 ..Q.xd 3 (9 ... e4 1 0 �d4 ± )
�xe4 �b4 1 2 �c3 Q.f5 1 3 �d4 1 0 itxd 3 :t Holmov-Moldavsky,
.Q.g6 =) 9 . . . itxd5 1 0 �c3 itd6 1 1 USS R 1 958. Better is 6 ... �f6 !
d 5 ! �b8 1 2 �b5 itb6 1 3 c4 f6 transposing to the main l ine.
1 4 .Q.e3 ± . 6 �f6
(b) 7 ... h6 8 §e1 §e8 9 .Q.e3 ed 6 ... c5 ?! 7 h3 �a6 8 .Q.b5+ .Q.d7
(Better is 9 ... .Q.f8) 1 0 �xd4 .Q.f8 9 .Q.xd7 itxd 7 10 0-0 �f6 1 1 ite2
1 1 ..Q.f4 �xd4 1 2 itxd4 .Q.e6 1 3 0-0 1 2 a4 ± Konstantinopolsky­
§ad 1 � Tai-F i lip, M ish kolz 1 963. Ai atortsev, USSR 1 952.
8 a4 h6 7 c4
8 ... ed 9 �xd4 �b4 (9 . . . �xd4 Less strong is 7 h3, for example :
1 0 itxd4 .Q.e6 1 1 ..Q.xe6 fe 1 2 e5 :t) (a) 7 ... c6 8 c4 b5 9 �c3 b4 1 0
 60 Hungarian Defence

{le2 0-0 1 1 Q.e3 cd 1 2 cd {la6 = B

{b) 7 ... 0-0 9 Q.e3 aS {8 ... cS? 9 3 d6 (58)
c4 {la6 1 0 {lc3 {lc7 1 1 g4 ±
Kupreichik-Lomaya, USS R 1 969)
9 g4 ?! {9 c4) 9 ... {la6 1 0 "itd2
c6 1 1 c4 {ld 7 1 2 {lc3 {)deS 1 3
0-0-0 {lxd3+ 1 4 "itxd 3 {lb4 1 S
"itd 2 cd 1 6 cd Q.d 7 + Kupreich i k­
Podgayets, USS R 1 970.
7 0-0
7 ... {lbd7 8 {lc3 {lf8 ? ! 9 h3
{lg6 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 .Q.e3 {lhS 1 2
!le1 {lhf4 1 3 Q.fl fS 1 4 �h2 "lte8
1 S ef .Q.xfS 1 6 {lg1 ± Lukovni kov­
Malevinsky, USS R 1 977. B 1 4 c3
8 h3 {lbd7 B2 4 d4
8 ... c6 (8 ... {le8 9 g4) 9 {lc3 Worth looking at is 4 0-0, after
{la6 1 0 .Q.e3 {ld7 10 g4 �acS which B l ac k 's best is a transposition
1 2 .Q.c2 aS 1 3 "itd2 a4 1 4 0-0 into variation A by 4 ... .Q.e 7. The
*aS 1 S !lab1 �b6 1 6 b4! ab 1 7 move 4 ... g6 does not extricate
ab "itb4 1 8 �e1 !la3 1 9 �d3 �xd3 Black from his difficu lties after 5
20 .Q.xd3 ;!; Kopilov-Smyslov, USSR d4 ed 6 Q.g5 ! .Q.e7 7 .Q.xe7 "itxe7
1 9S 1 . 8 �xd4 �f6 9 �c3 0-0 1 0 !le1
9 �c3 �e8 "lte5 1 1 �f3 "ltc5 12 .Q.b3 .Q.g4
(a) 9 �hS 1 0 Q.c2 ( 1 0 g3 �hf6 1 3 h3 .Q.xf3 1 4 -ltxf3 �g7 1 S !lad 1
1 1 "ite2 c6 1 2 .Q.e3 "ltc7 1 3 0-0-0 ;!; Yudasin-Vorotni kov, Len ingrad
...

;!; S okolsky-Lisitsin, USS R 1 944) Ch 1 979.

1 0 ... .Q.f6 1 1 �xeS enxeS 1 2 "itxhS B 1
�xc4 13 *e2 �eS 14 0-0 !le8 4 c3 .Q.e7
1 S .Q.d2 �g6 1 6 f4 ;!; Honfi­ (a) 4 ... .Q.g4 and further:
Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1 970. (a 1 ) 5 "itb3 "itd7 ! Now the intense
(b) 9 . �cS 1 0 .Q.e2 a5 1 1 0-0 ;!; p l ay favours B l ac k : 6 .Q.xf7+ (6 {lg5
..

White follows up with a3 and b4. �h6 7 .Q.xf7+ {lxf7 8 �xf7 -ltxf7
10 0-0 g6 9 "itxb7 �d 7 1 0 "itxa8 "itc4! 1 1 f3
11 Q.h6 �g7 .Q.xf3 ! 1 2 gf �d4! + Rodzinsky­
1 2 "itd2 Alekhine, Paris 1 9 1 3 ; better for
(a) 12 . . aS 1 3 Q.c2 �h8 1 4 �e1 White was 6 "itxb7 § b8 7 "ita6
.

�f6 1 5 �d3 �g8 1 6 .Q.e3 f5 1 7 !lb6 8 -lta4 f5 ! 9 d 3 with chances

f4 ;!; Fusch-Kholmov, Leningrad for both sides) 6 ... "ltxf7 7 "itxb7
1 967. �d7 8 "ltxa8 Q.xf3 9 gf "itxf3 1 0
(b) 1 2 . f5 ! ? 1 3 ef gf 1 4 �g5 !lg1 "itxe4+ 1 1 �d 1 "itf3+ 1 2 �e 1
..

�c5 1 5 .Q.c2 a5 =. Chances stand ( 1 2 �c2? {ld4+) 1 2 ... e4 1 3 {la3

approximately equal . ( 1 3 !lg3 "ith 1 + 1 4 �e2 {lf6 and
 Hungarian Defence 61

Black is wmnmg with threats of :l: Gipslis-Vorotnikov, Spartakiad

*xc 1 and �hS) 1 3 ... �eS 1 4 *xa7 1 979.
�d3+ 1 s �fl *d 1 + 1 s �2 m4+ s *b3 �g6
1 7 �g3 *f3+ winning. Keres. 6 d4 0-0
(a2) S d4 *e7 (S ... .11x f3 6 *xf3 7 .11 x h6 gh
*f6 7 -'le3 :l: or S ... *d7 6 -'ld S :l: 8 �bd2 �aS
Keres) 6 d S ( 6 .11 e 3 �f6 7 *b3 9 *c2 �xc4
�d8 8 �bd2 :l: Levenfish-l lyin­ 1 0 �xc4 fS !
=

Zhenevsky, USSR 1 936) 6 ... �b8 Makarichev-Averbakh, USS R 1 978.

7 �bd2 g6 8 a4 -'lh6 9 aS �f6 B2
1 0 h3 .11 c8 1 1 11bS+ c6 1 2 de be 4 d4 ed
1 3 �c4 -'lf8 1 4 .11 a4 m Polyantsev­ 4 ... 11g4 ?! (4 ... .11 e7 - see A)
Pu kshansky, USS R 1 978. S h3 11xf3 6 *xf3 *f6 7 *b3 !
(a3) 5 h 3 .ll h S 6 d 3 .11 e 7 7 �bd2 t �d8 ( 7 ... �xd4? 8 *xb 7 �xc2+
I n this position, rem iniscent of one 9 �d 1 �xa 1 1 0 11b5+ wins) 8 de
of the variations of the Span ish de 9 11e3 11d6 1 0 �c3 �e7 1 1
Game, White's chances are prefer­ �b5 a6 1 2 �xd6+ *xd6 1 3 0-0 ±
able. Gavrikov-VIadimirov, USS R 1 978.
(b) 4 ... *e7 5 d4 g6 (5 ... ed 6 S �xd4 g6! ?
0-0! :!: ) 6 0-0 .11g 7 7 de �xeS 8 6 0-0 -'lg7
�xeS *xeS 9 -'le3 �f6 1 0 11d4 7 �e2 � f6
*h5 1 1 f3 0-0 1 2 �d2 .Q.d 7 1 3 8 �bc3 0-0
=

§e1 .11 c 6 1 4 �f1 *gS 1 5 �e3 Gavrikov-Vorotnikov, USS R 1 979.

7 I tal i a n Game

1 e4 e5
2 �f3 �c6 59
3 �c4 .Q.c5 (59) w
The I tal ian Game is one of the
oldest open games, analysis of
which exists in works by I talian
authors of the 1 6th-1 7th centuries
(hence the name of the opening) ,
in part by J oachim G reco, known as
'il Calabrese'. Wh ite's plan involves
the d irect threat on the p awn at f7
and the creation of an attack on
the K ing. In the 1 8th and 1 9th .Q.b6! + or 6 "C1'b3 �a5 7 "C1'a4+ c6
centu ries, the I tal ian Game was 8 d4 b5 9 "C1'c2 �xc4 1 0 de .Q.xf3
frequently played since the aims 1 1 gf de + ) and further
of the opening confo rmed to the (a) 5 d4 �xd4! (5 ... ed is examined
style of play at that time. Gradually in the Two K night's Defence, and
there were found active possibilities after 5 ... �xd4?! 6 �xe5 �e6 7
of play for Black. Furthermore , the �xe6 fe 8 �d3 White obtains the
move 3 ... .Q.c5 for Black was advantage) 6 �xd4 �xd4 (6 ... ed ?
eclipsed i n popularity by the move 7 e5! ± ) 7 .Q.g5 (7 f4 d6 8 fe de
3 ... �f6, lead ing to the Two 9 c3? .Q.g5 10 "C1'a4+ .Q.d7 1 1 "l1'd 1
K n ight's Defence. At the p resent �e6 + Passos-Tarjan, Qui to 1 976;
time the I talian Game is met better is 9 .Q.g5 Q.e6 1 0 �a3 "l1'e7 ,
comparatively rarely. b u t even i n this case Black has a
A 4 d3 good game - Keres.) 7 ... d6 8 f4
B 4 c3 ffe7 9 fe de 1 0 �c3 c6 1 1 §f2
After 4 b4 we h ave the Evans �e6 1 2 .Q.d 3 h6 1 3 .Q.xf6 gf
Gambit, dealt w ith in Chapter 8. Freeman-Bernstein, Vilnius 1 9 1 2.
We look at 4 0-0 �f6 (also good (b) 5 c3 �xe4 6 d4 d5 ! ? (6 ... ed 7
is 4 ... d6 5 c3 �g4, i.e. 6 d4 ed cd d5! Keres) 7 �xe5 �xe5 8 Q.b3
7 itb3 �xf3 8 .Q.xf7+ *f"B 9 gf �b6 9 de "C1'h4 ! 1 0 "C1'e 1 .Q.e6 1 1

lle3 0-0 1 2 llc2 f6! + Kupreichik-
Smirnov, Bijelorussia Ch 1 976.
A 8
4 d3
The 'Giuoco Pianissimo', which
means 'the most quiet game) in
Italian, nevertheless demands exact
play from B l ack. Recently Bent
Larsen has played a great role in the
development of this variation.
4 <Df6
F u l ly possible is 4 ... d6 and if
S <DgS (S <Dc3 <Df6 lead s to the main
l ine) , then S ... <Dg6 6 tthS 0-0
7 0-0 <Dd4 8 llb3 llg4 9 l'th4 lle6
+ Bilguer.
S <Dc3 d6
s .. . 0-0? ! 6 .Q.gS .Q.b4 7 0-0
.Q.xc3 8 be h6 9 llh4 d6 1 0 ae1
<DaS 1 1 llb3 .Q.g4 1 2 h3 .Q.xf3
1 3 l'txf3 gS 1 4 llg3 ae8 1 S h4 ;!;
Larsen-Kuzmin, Reykjavik 1 978.
6 .Q.gS (60)
6 0-0 ( 6 h3 .Q.e6 7 oDdS llxdS
8 ed <De7 9 d4 ed 1 0 <Dxd4 <DfxdS
1 1 .Q.xdS <DxdS 1 2 <DfS c6 1 3
<Dxg7+ �d7 + Kovacs-Keres, Buda­
pest 1 970) 6 ... .Q.g4 ! 7 .Q.e3 (after
7 h3 there fol lows 7 ... .Q.hS , as 7 ...
h S ? ! fails due to 8 hg hg 9 <DgS g3
1 0 lle3 ! ) 7 ... <Dd4 8 llxd4 .Q.xd4
9 h3 .Q.hS with a good position for
Black. On 1 0 g4 possible is 1 0 ...
.Q.xc3 1 1 be <Dxg4! 1 2 hg .Q.xg4
1 3 d4 ttf6 14 lle2 .Q.h3 + Keres.
A 1 6 ... <DaS
A2 6 ... h6
We examine other continuations.
(a) 6 ... .Q.g4 (6 ... <De7 7 .Q.xf6 gf
8 d4 ±) 7 oDdS <Dd4 8 c3 <Dxf3+
(8 ... .Q.xf3 9 l'ta4+! ±) 9 gf .Q.e6
1 0 d4 ± Keres.
(b) 6 .. . .Q.e6 7 llbS ( 7 oDdS .Q.xdS
Italian Game 63
60
8 .ll x dS h6 9 Q.xf6 ttxf6 1 0 c3
0-0 ) 7 ... h6 8 llh4 llb4 9 d4
=
(9 0-0 ! ? Capablanca) 9 ... lld7 1 0
0-0 llxc3 1 1 be gS 1 2 llg3 <Dxe4
= N imzowitsch-Capabl anca, R iga
1 9 1 3.
A1
6 <DaS
7 llb3
(a) 7 .Q.xf6 l'txf6 (7 ... gf? 8 <Dh4
<Dxc4 9 de fS 1 0 <DxfS .Q.xfS 1 1
ef fth4 1 2 l'tf3 ± ) 8 -Dd S ftd8 9
b4 <Dxc4 1 0 de ( 1 0 be c6! 1 1 de
cd 1 2 cdS l'taS+ 13 l'td2 fixeS +
Blau-Euwe, Leizerheid 1 9S6) 1 0 ...
.Q.b6 + .
(b) 7 oDdS <Dxc4 8 d e c6 (also
possible is 8 ... .Q.xf2+, i.e . 9 �e2
.Q.b6 1 o a f1 h6 1 1 .Q.h4 .Q.e6 ! +
Ravinsky, or 9 �xf2 <Dxe4+ 1 0
�g1 <DxgS 1 1 <DxgS c6 1 2 l'thS g6
1 3 fth6 cd 1 4 l'tg7 l'txgS 1 S
l'txh8+ �e7 1 6 h4! = Unzicker)
9 <Dxf6+ gf 1 0 .Q.h4 ag8 ( 1 0 ...
ftd7 ! ? 1 1 .Q.xf6 ag8 u nclear -
Ravinsky) 1 1 0-0 .Q.e6 + Eliskases­
Bronstein, M ar del Pl ata 1 960.
7 �xb3
8 ab .Q.e6
9 <Da4!
9 0-0 .Q.b6 1 0 <De2 h6 1 1 .Q.e3
64 Italian Game
0-0 1 2 h3 {)d7 1 3 d4 fS Karls­ = (a) 9 .. .ll e6 1 0 d4 ed 1 1 cd Q.b4+
.

Keres, corres 1 93B. ( 1 1 ... .ll b 6? 1 2 {)xb6 ab 13 dS

9 h6 {)aS 14 Q.d3 wins) 1 2 {)xb4 .11. xc4
10 .ll h 4 .ll g4 1 3 {)xc6 be 1 4 'itc2 ± .
On 1 0 .ll b 6 good is 1 1 .llx f6 + .
·-· (b) 9 . . o.o 1 0 b4! .ll b 6 1 1 a4 aS
.

1 1 {)xeS de 1 2 {)xb6 cb 1 3 ba! + .

1 2 h3 .llxf3 (c) 9 ... a6 ! ? (9 . . . aS ? 1 0 d4 .11. a7
1 3 itxf3 itd6 1 1 de de 1 2 ite2 and 0-0-0 ± )
1 4 .ll x f6 itxf6 1 0 b 4 ( 1 0 d4 ed ! 1 1 c d .lla 7 1 2
1 S itxf6 gf h 3 0-0 1 3 0-0 .ll c 6 1 4 §c 1 {)aS !
1 6 §aS ;l; +) 1 0 ... .lla 7 1 1 a4 .lle 6 1 2 itb 3
Hug-Barle, Pula 1 97S. 0-0 1 3 {)e3 itd7 = Cortlever­
A2 Fiores, Dubrovnik 1 9SO.
6 h6 1 0 {)e3
7 .ll xf6 (a) 10 b4 {)xdS (1 0 ... .llb 6 1 1
7 .ll h 4 .llg4 B h3 .ll x f3 9 itxf3 {)xb6 ab 1 2 d4 ed 1 3 {)xd4 0-0
{)d4 1 0 itd 1 c6 Romanovsky­
= 1 4 0-0 ;l; Keres) 1 1 be {)f4 =.

Levenfish , USS R 1 922. (b) 10 d4 {)xdS 1 1 de {)f4 1 2

7 itxf6 .llb S+ Q.d7 1 3 .ll x d7+ itxd7 1 4 g3
7 ... gf? B {)h4 ± {)e6 Tartakower-Euwe, Hastings
=

B {)dS itdB 1 93S/36.

B ... itg6 9 ite2 ! (9 {)xc7+?
*dB 1 0 {)xaB itxg2 1 1 §f1 .llg4
wins) 9 ... .Q.g4 1 0 c3 (after 1 0
{)xc7+ ? ! *dB 1 1 {)xaB {)d4 1 2
itd 1 .llx f3 1 3 gf itg2 B l ack has a
strong attack) 1 0 ... Q.b6 1 1 a4
fS ( 1 1 ... {)aS 1 2 .lla 2 cS 1 3 h 3 ± )
1 2 b4! ;l; Keres.
9 c3 (61)
9 {)e7
10 c6
(a) 10 ... .lle 6 1 1 .ll x e6 fc 1 2
itb3 itcB 1 3 d 4 ed 1 4 {)xd4! ±
Capabl anca-Eiiskases, M oscow 1 936.
(b) 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 0-0 {)g6 1 2 d4
.ll b 6 1 3 de de 1 4 itxdB §xdB 1 S
§ad 1 §eB ;l; Larsen-Portisch, Rot­
terdam (match) 1 977.
1 1 d4 ed
12 {)xd4 0-0
1 3 0-0 *hB
1 4 .ll b 3 ;l;
Barle-lvkov, Bled-Portoroz 1 979.
If now 14 ... fS , then Barle gives
1 S {)xeS {)xfS 1 6 {)xfS .ll xfS 1 7
ef §xfS 1 B .ll c 2 ;l; ,
Thus i n the 'Giuoco Pianissi mo'
Black's problems are not as simple
as h ad previously been thought.
The smallest inaccuracy can lead
Black into a bad position. In the
position of d iagram 6 1 (Var. B)

the rare continuation 9 ... a6 ! ?
is best for B l ack.
8 ab 1 1 cb c£Jxb4 1 2 trb3 llcS 1 3
4 c3
Now:
81 4 ... trc7
82 4 ... c£Jf6
Other continuations arc weaker.
(a) 4 ... trf6 (4 ... fS ? ! S d3 c£Jf6
6 b4 .Q.b6 7 a4 a6 8 0-0 d6 9
c£Jbd2 tre7 1 0 lla3 ± Keres) S d4
.Q.b6 (S ... ed 6 eS trg6 7 cd trxg2
8 §g1 .Q.b4+ 9 c£Jc3 trh3 1 0 .Q.xn+
± Bilguer) 6 0-0 h6 (6 ... d6 7 .Q.gS
trg6 8 de de 9 c£JxeS ! trxgS 1 0
{)xn trcS 1 1 .Q.dS {)d6 1 2 {)xh8
.Q.g4 1 3 i*b3 winning - Bilguer)
7 a4 a6 (7 ... d6? 8 aS ± ) 8 d e
c£lxeS 9 {)xeS trxeS 1 0 trf3 c£Jf6
1 1 aS .Q.a7 1 2 §e1 d6 1 3 .Q.f4
trhS 1 4 eS ± .
{ b ) 4 ... d6 S d 4 e d 6 cd and
fu rther:
{b 1) 6 ... .Q.b6 7 c£Jc3 c£Jf6 (7 ...
.Q.g4 8 .Q.bS ! .Q.xf3 9 gf trh4 1 0
0-0 0-0-0 1 1 .Q.xc6 be 1 2 b4 and
a4 ± ) 8 .Q.c3 .Q.g4 (8 . . . c£Jxc4
9 c£Jxe4 dS 1 0 .Q.b3 de 1 1 c£lgS ±
Keres) 9 .Q.b3 0-0 1 0 trd 3 §e8
1 1 0-0 .Q.hS 1 2 §ae 1 .Q.g6 1 3 .Q.gS
h6 1 4 .Q.h4 .Q.hS 1 S {)dS gS 1 6
c£JxgS ! ± Leonhardt-Maroczy, Karls­
bad 1 907.
(b2) 6 ... .Q.b4+ 7 c£Jc3 c£Jf6 8 .Q.gS
h6 9 .Q.xf6 trxf6 1 0 0-0 llxc3 11
be .Q.g4 1 2 §e1 .Q.xf3 1 3 trxf3
trxf3 1 4 gf t or 7 .Q.d 2 llxd2+
8 trxd2 {)f6 9 {)c3 {)xe4 1 0 c£Jxe4
dS 1 1 .Q.xdS trxdS 1 2 0-0 0-0
1 3 c£lc3 trd6 1 4 dS t .
81
4 tre7
s d4 llb6 (62}
Italian Game 65
S ... ed ? ! 6 0-0 c£JeS (6 ... d 3
7 eS h6 8 b 4 .Q. b 6 9 a4 a S 1 0 lla3
.Q.c3 ± Rossolimo-Evans, Hastings
1 949/SO) 7 c£JxeS trxeS 8 b4 .Q.e7
9 §e1 de 1 0 trb3 trhS 1 1 c£Jxc3
c£Jf6 1 2 eS c£lg4 1 3 h 3 {)h6 1 4
c£Jd S .Q.d 8 1 S c£Jf6+! Che rvonov­
Dumansky, U kraine Ch 1 980.
62 .I B..J.· ·· � ·
• .... � .... U i • i
.&. • .&. •
w • •
1!1)8. • B.
�
.. •
- �
- • p
B..Q..B ft . B.
B. 6 B.l£JB.
fa·
.U. U.
"g �� ft�
� U U
�l[j���� B. .§
6 0-0
(a) 6 dS {)d8 (after 6 ... {)b8 7 d6
trxd6 8 trxd6 cd 9 c£lgS c£Jh6 1 0
a4 c£Jc6 1 1 b4 f6 1 2 c£Jf3 c£J n 1 3
a5 .Q.c7 1 4 c£la3 and White has
sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed pawn) 7 0-0 (worse i s
7 d6 c d 8 c£Ja3 {)f6 9 trd 3 a6 1 0
.Q.gS h 6 1 1 .Q.xf6 trxf6 1 2 § d 1
.Q.c7 1 3 .Q.dS c£Je6 1 4 g 3 §b8 +
Medina-Aiekhine, Dijon 1 94S) d6
8 .Q.d3 c£Jf6 9 c£Jbd2 c6 10 c£Jc4 .Q.c7
1 1 de be 1 2 b3 .Q.e6 1 3 tre2 0-0 =
Becker-Ahues, Mun ich 1 936.
{b) 6 a4 a6 7 dS {)d8 (The knight
has a better future on d8; weaker
is 7 ... c£Jb8 8 aS .Q.a 7 9 d6 trxd6
1 0 trxd6 cd 1 1 lldS {)f6 1 2 .Q.e3
.Q.xe3 1 3 fe {)c6 1 4 c£Jbd2 {)e7
1 S c£Jc4 c£JexdS 1 6 ed {)xdS 1 7
§ d 1 ± ) 8 d6 trxd6 9 trxd6 cd and
further:
 66 Italian Game

(b1 ) 1 0 <tla3 <tlc6 1 1 �d5 <tlce7 1 3 h3 c6 1 4 Aa2 Ac7 1 5 b4 .Q.d7 =

1 2 <Dc4 llc7 1 3 b3 f5 ! with a good Alekhine-Salve, Carlsbad 1 9 1 1 .
game for Black - Keres. 7 <tlf6
(b2) 1 0 Ad5 �c6 1 1 �a3 llc7 8 §e1 h6! ?
1 2 �c4 <tlce7 1 3 b3 (after 1 3 �e3 After 8 .. 0-0 White 's chances
.

�f6 1 4 a5 §b8 or 1 3 �e3 <Df6 1 4 are preferable, i.e . :

§d 1 �exd5 1 5 ed b5! B l ack has
good counterplay) 1 3 ... �f6 1 4
�a3 �exd5 1 5 ed <tlxd5 1 6 0-0-0!
( 1 6 <tlxd6+ Axd6 1 7 Axd6 �xc3
18 AxeS �e4 1 9 Axg7 § g8 20
AeS d6 21 �g3 Ae6 ) 1 6 ... bS !
==
( 1 6 ... �xc3? 1 7 Axd6 ! ± Bron­
(a) 9 a4 a6 1 0 �a3 ( 1 0 b4 *h8 1 1
Aa3 ed 1 2 cd �xe4! + K lovan­
Aronin, USS R 1 963) 1 0 ... <3'h8
1 1 �d5 ( 1 1 �c2 ! ?) 1 1 . . . ed 1 2 cd
�b4 1 3 .Q.gS with an active position
for White.
(b) 9 �a3 *h8 1 0 �c2 �d8 ( 1 0 . ..

stein) 1 7 �xd6+ Axd6 1 8 Axd6 ed 1 1 cd �xe4 1 2 �e3 itd8 1 3

Ab 7 1 9 �e5 f6 with chances for
both sides.
(c) 6 AbS �f6 7 0-0 0-0 8 Axc6
be 9 �xeS d6! 10 �xc6 ihe4
1 1 �b4 cS! 1 2 �c2 itg6 1 3 �e3
§e8 14 �a3 cd 1 S cd d S with
sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed pawn Sax-Oi afsson, Tee­
side 1 97S.
(d) 6 AgS �f6 7 dS �d8 8 �bd2
�dS ;l; U nzicker) 1 1 b3 Ae6 1 2
Af1 �g8 1 3 �e3 f6 1 4 �dS itd7
1 S c4 ;l; Bouwmeester-Euwe, Hol­
land 1 9S2.
9 a4 a6
1 0 Ae3
10 �a3 gS ! ? 1 1 de de 1 2 �h2
g4 ! 1 3 hg §g8 14 gS hg 1 5 Ae3
Axe3 1 6 !he3 §h8 + Honfi­
Dam j anovic Sarajevo 1 966.
,

(after 8 a4 Black should not play 10 g5

8 ... .Q.xf2+? 9 *f1 �c5 1 0 b4 Ad6 1 1 de de
1 1 �h4 itf8 1 2 .Q.xf6 gf 1 3 �fS 12 Axb6 cb
itg8 1 4 h4 Af8 1 5 §h3 ± Estrin­ 1 3 �h2 =

Polyak, USSR 1 9S9, but rather - Unzicker.

8 ... a6 and i f 9 d6 then 9 ... cd ! 82
Keres) 8 ... d6 9 Ad3 c6 1 0 �c4 4 �f6 (63}
Ac7 1 1 �e3 h6 1 2 Ah4 §g8 1 3 B2 1 s d4
Axf6 itxf6 1 4 0-0 g� 1 S �e1 *f8 B22 s d 3
1 6 g3 *&7 with approximately 821
equal chances, Sax-S myslov, Tee­ 5 d4 ed
side 1 97S. 82 1 1 6 cd
6 d6 82 1 2 6 0-0
7 h3 6 eS (6 b4 Ab6 7 b5 �a5 8
7 a4 a6 8 Ae3 (8 b4 �f6 9 Aa3 Ad3 d5 9 eS �e4 1 0 cd Ag4 1 1
Ag4 1 0 bS �aS 1 1 �bd2 �xe4! Ae3 �c4 + Unzicker) 6 ... dS!
+ Rossetto-Euwe, Buenos Aires 7 AbS (7 ef de 8 fg §g8 9 .Q.g5
1 947) 8 ... �f6 9 �bd2 �g4 1 0 f6 1 0 ite2+ ite 7 1 1 Axf6 itxe2+
ite2 �xe3 1 1 fe 0-0 1 2 §f2 �d8 1 2 *xe2 d3 1 3 *d 1 Ag4 + or 7 b4

63
w USA 1 964) 9 ed .nxd 5 1 0 l'tb3
.ne4 8 be de 9 cd ..Q.g4 1 0 ..Q.e3
l'td 5 1 1 h3 ..Q.h5 1 2 g4 ..Q.g6 1 3 h4
0-0-0 + Bi lguer) 7 ... .ne4 8 cd (8
.nxd4 ..Q.d7 9 ..ll x c6 be 10 0-0 f6 !
+ Butwii-Larsen, Le Havre 1 966)
8 ... �b6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 .nc3 ..Q.g4
1 1 ..Q.e3 f5 1 2 ef .nxc3 1 3 be
l'txf6 == Steini tz-Schiffers, Vienna
1 898.
B21 1
6 cd ..Q.b4+
6 ... ..Q.b6 7 d5 .nc7 8 e5 .ng4
9 d 6 ! ± Keres.
7 .nc3
This move was proposed in the
1 7th Centu ry by G reco.
We exam ine also 7 �d2 (unac­
ceptable for White is 7 e>fl d5 ! 8
ed .nxd5 + ) :
(a) 7 ... .nxe4 (7 ... d5 8 ed ..Q.xd 2+
9 l'txd2 .nxd5 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 .nC3
;!;) 8 ..ll x b4 .nxb4 8 ilxf7+ e>xf7
1 0 l'tb3+ d5 1 1 .ndS+ ( 1 1 l'txb4
E!e8 ) e>e6 ( 1 1 ... e>f6 1 2 f3 ! ± )
==
1 2 l'txb4 c5 1 3 l'ta3 ! Keres (1 3
l'ta4 l'tb6 + ) cd 1 4 .nf3 l'tb6 1 5
0-0 e>f7 1 6 E! d l (1 6 .nes ;J; ) 1 6 ...
d3 17 .neS+ e>f6 18 .nxd 3 �g4
1 9 E!el l'td4 u nclear Ravinsky.
(b) 7 ... ..Q.xd2+ 8 .nbxd2 d5 (8 ...
.nxe4 d5 1 0 l'te2 0-0 1 1 0-0-0 ..Q.g4
Italian Game 67
1 2 h3 �xf3 1 3 gf de 1 4 ttxc4
l'th4 1 5 e>b l ;l; Mcdnis-F ischer,
.nce7 1 1 0-0 0-0 with about equal
chances, i.e . :
(b l ) 1 2 a4 E!b8 1 3 Eifel h6 1 4
.neS ..Q.e6 1 5 .ne4 .nc6 1 6 .nxc6
be 1 7 l'ta3 .nf4 1 8 ..ll x e6 .nxe6
1 9 E!ad l ltS-ltS Sveshni kov-Barczay,
Moscow (European Ch) 1 977.
(b2) 12 Eife l c6 ( 1 2 ... .nb6 1 3
�d3 .nc6 1 4 E!acl e>h8 1 5 ilb1 !
;!;) 1 3 .ne4 ( 1 3 a4 ttc7 1 4 E!ac1
l'tf4 1 5 .ne4 �f5 1 6 .ncs b6 1 7
.nd3 ..llx d3 1 8 �xd3 E! ad8 ==
Sch lechter-Breyer, Baden 1 9 1 4)
1 3 ... h6 1 4 a4 aS 1 5 .nes ttb6
1 6 l'txb6 .nxb6 1 7 ..Q.xf7+ E!xf7
1 8 .nxf7 e>xf7 1 9 .nd6+ e>f8 20
E!a3 .nbd5 21 E!f3+ .nf6 22
E!fe3 .nfd5 Sveshni kov-Dorfman,
==
USS R 1 978.
7 .nxe4
7 ... d 5 ? ! 8 ed .nxd 5 9 0-0!
.nxc3 (9 ... �e6 1 0 ilg5 ..Q.e7 1 1
..Q.xd5 ..Q.xd5 1 2 .nxd5 l'txd5 1 3
..llx e7 .nxe7 1 4 E!el f6 1 5 tte2
l'td7 1 6 l'te4 c6 1 7 E!e2 e>f7 1 8
E!ae1 .nd5 1 9 l'th4 ± Keres) 1 0 be
..Q.c7 ( 1 0 ... ..ll x c3? 1 1 l'tb3 ..Q.xa1
1 2 ..Q.xf7+ e>f8 1 3 ..Q.a3+ .ne7
1 4 ..Q.h5 g6 1 5 .ng5 l'te8 1 6 E!e1
wins) 1 1 Q.f4 ;l; B ilguer.
8 0-0
8 d 5 ? ! .nxc3 9 be ..llx c3+ 1 0
..Q.d 2 l'te7+ 1 1 e>fl ..Q.xa1 1 2 \'txa l
0-0 + Keres.
8 ..llx c3
8 ... .nxc3 (8 ... 0-0? 9 d 5 �xc3
1 0 bc .ne7 1 1 E!e1 .nf6 1 2 d6 ± )
9 b e d 5 ! 1 0 c b d e 1 1 E!e l +
.ne7 1 2 ..Q.g5 f6 1 3 tte2 ..Q.g4
( 1 3 ... fg 1 4 l'txc4 ± Keres) 1 4 ..Q.f4
 68 Italian Game
'llf7 1 5 l'txc4 4)d5 1 6 4)d2! �e6
1 7 �g3 §e8 1 8 4)e4 :t .
9 d 5 (64)
The Moi ler Attack. Bad is 9 be
d5 1 0 �a3 dc 1 1 §c1 �e6 1 2
§xe4 l'td5 1 3 l'te2 0-0-0 + Steinitz­
Lasker, Match 1 896.
64
8 (e2) 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2 l'txe4 4)d6 1 3
9 Jtf6
(a) 9 ... 4)d6 1 0 de .Q.f6 ( 1 0 ...
4)xc4 1 1 l'te2+ l'te7 1 2 l'txc4 .Q.a5
1 3 �g5 f6 1 4 § ae 1 .Q.xe 1 1 5
§xe 1 l'txe 1 + 1 6 4)xe 1 fg 1 7 l'te4+
�f7 1 8 cb wins - B i l guer) 1 1 §e1 +
'llfB ( 1 1 ... Jte7 1 2 Jtg5 f6 1 3 4)e5 !
± ) 1 2 c b .Q.xb 7 1 3 .Q.b3 ± .
- (b) 9 ... 4)a5 1 0 .Q.d 3 4)c5 1 1 be
4)xd3 ( 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2 Jtxh 7+ �xf7
1 3 4)g5+ �g6 1 4 *&4 f5 1 5 l'tg3
�6 1 6 c4 wins) 1 2 l'txd3 0-0; 3
4)g5 g6 ( 1 3 ... fS 1 4 d 6 ! ) 1 4 "ith3
hS 1 S 4)e4 ± B il guer.
(c ) 9 ... 4)e7 1 0 be 4)d6 1 1 Jtb3
0-0 1 2 c4 b6 1 3 .Q.b2 4)e8 1 4 .Q.c2
4) g6 1 S l'td3 d6 1 6 4)d4 ± Moiler.
(d) 9 ... JtaS 1 0 de be ( 1 0 ... de
1 1 l'ta4 .Q.b6 1 2 .Q.xf7+ ± or 10 ...
0-0 1 1 l'tdS 4)d6 1 2 Jtd3 .Q.b6
1 :; Jtxh 7+! ± ) 1 1 4)eS 4)d6 1 2 *&4
l'tf6 1 3 b4! l'txeS 1 4 Jtf4 l'tf6
1 S §ae 1 �8 1 6 .Q.gS l'tg6 1 7 .Q.e 7+
�f8 1 8 .Q.xd6 .Q.b7 1 9 l'txd7 hS
20 .Q.c5 ± B ilguer.
(e) 9 ... 4)eS ! ? 1 0 be 4)xc4 1 1 l'td4
and further:
(e 1 ) 1 1 ... 4)cd6? 1 2 l'txg7 l'tf6 1 3
l'txf6 4)xf6 1 4 §e1 + 4)fc4 ( 1 4 ...
�f8 1 5 .Q.h6+ 'it>g8 1 6 §e5 wins or
1 4 ... �dB 1 5 .Q.g5 4)dc8 1 6 4)e5
§f8 1 7 4)g4 ± ) 1 5 4)d2 f5 1 6 f3
±
l'td3 4)e8 co Mieses-Zuchting,
Vienna 1 908.
(e3) 1 1 ... f5 ! 1 2 l'txc4 d6 1 3 4)d4
0-0 1 4 f3 4)c5 (after 1 4 . .. {lf6
1 S .Q.gS White has compensation
for the pawn, accord ing to Keres)
1 5 § e 1 �h8 ( 1 S ... §e8 1 6 .Q.a3
§xe 1 + 1 7 §xe1 4)a6 1 8 l'tbS ±
Schlechter-Meitner, Vienna 1 908)
1 6 Jta3 b6 1 7 4)c6 .Q.a6 1 8 l'td4
Romanov-Kotikov, corres 1 964 and
now 1 8 . . . l't f6 ! ? 1 9 l'txf6 §xf6
20 §e7 .Q.c4 oo , Panov.
1 0 §e 1 {le7
1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 §xe4 4)e7 (White
has a strong attack after 1 1 ... {laS
1 2 .Q.d3 d6 1 3 g4. Thomas-Maxwell ,
corres 1 966) 1 2 d6 cd 1 3 l'txd6
4)fS 1 4 l'tdS {le7 =.
11 §xe4 d6
1 2 .Q.gS
1 2 g4 0-0 1 3 g5 .Q.eS 1 4 {}xeS
de 1 S §xeS 4)g6 1 6 §e1 l'td7 +
Keres.
12 .Q.xgS
1 3 {lxgS h6!
1 3 ... 0-0 14 4)xh 7 .Q.fS 1 5
§xe7 ( 1 S §h4? ! §e8 1 6 4)gS {lg6
1 7 § hS l'td 7 1 8 h 3 4)eS + ) 1 S ...
l'txe7 1 6 4)xf8 §xf8 + .
1 4 JtbS+
14 l'te2 ( 1 4 l'th5 0-0 1 5 §ae 1
 Italian Game 69

<tlf5 1 6 <tlxf7 l'tf6 ! +) 1 4 ... hg 1 5 Estrin-Letic, corres 1 969.

§e1 ..Q.e6 ! 1 6 de f6 + . (b) 6 ... d3 7 b4 Q.e7 (7 ... Q.b6
14 .Q.d7 8 a4 a6 9 e5 d5 1 0 ..Q.xd 3 <tle4
1 5 l'te2 ..Q.xb5 1 1 l'tc2 ..Q.f5 1 2 .Q.a3 ± E strin­
1 5 ... §f8? 1 6 §ae 1 <tlg6 (1 6 ... Korelov, USS R 1 970) 8 e5 <tlg4
<tlxd5 17 <tlxf7 ! 'l1xf7 18 ..Q.c4 c6 9 §e1 d6 1 0 ecd 1 1 ..Q.xd 3 ;!;
1 9 §e7+ 'l1g8 20 l'tf3 ± U nzicker) Estrin-B ilian , Varna 1 969.
1 7 <tlf3 and White has a strong 7 cd d5!
initiative . 7 ... .Q.e7 8 d5 <tlb8 9 §e1
1 6 l'txb5+ l'td7 <tid 6 1 0 ..Q.d 3 0-0 1 1 <tlc3 <tle8
1 6 ... 'l1f8 1 7 §ae 1 ± . 1 2 d 6 ! <tlxd6 1 3 ..Q.f4 with a strong
1 7 l'te2 attack for White.
1 7 l'txb7 ( 1 7 l'txd7+? 'l1xd 7 1 8 8 de de
<tlxf7 §hf8 wins) 1 7 ... 0-0 1 8 9 l'txd8+
§ae1 ( 1 8 <tlf3 §fb8 + ) 1 8 ... <tlg6 In the event of 9 l'te2 l'td3 Black
1 9 <tlf3 §fb8 +. has no d ifficu l ties.
17 'l1f8 + 9 'l1xd8
Barczay-Portisch, Hungary 1 969. 9 ... <tlxd8 1 0 §e1 f5 1 1 <tlc3
The game continued : 1 8 <tlxf7? 0-0 1 2 <tlxe4 fe 1 3 § xe4 ..Q.e6 1 4
( 1 8 <tlf3 <tlxd5 +) 1 8 ... 'l1xf7 <tld4 .Q.d5 1 5 §e5 c6 (more prom­
1 9 § e 1 <tlg8 ! 20 §e6 'l1f8 ! 2 1 f4 ising is 1 5 ... �f7 Popov) 1 6 ..Q.d2 ;!;
<tlf6 22 §xe7 §e8! + + . Popov-Schneider, corres 1 976.
821 2 10 §d 1 + .Q.d7
6 0-0 (65) 1 0 ... 'l1e8 1 1 §e 1 f5 1 2 <tlc3 ;!;
Estrin .
65 1 1 �e3
8 The critical position for the
evalu ation of the variation 6 0-0.
B l ack 's chances are no worse, for
example:
(a) 1 1 ... 'l1e7 1 2 <tla3 �e6 ( 1 2 ...
c3?! 1 3 be <tlxc3 14 §d3 <tle4
1 5 §e 1 .Q.e6 Honfi-Sax, Hungary
1 970 and now 1 6 <tld4 <tlxd4 1 7
.Q.xd4 §hd8 1 8 <tlb5 ! ;!; Estrin)
13 <tlb5 §hc8 ( 13 ... §hd8 1 4
6 <tlxe4 <tlxc7 §xd 1 + 1 5 §xd1 §d8 1 6
(a) 6 ... d5 ( 6 ... de 7 <tlxc3 ± §xd8 <tlxd8 with good play for
Gligo ric or 7 e5 ± Panov, Estrin) Black, Ravinsky) 1 4 <tlg5 <tlxg5
7 ed <tlxd5 (7 ... <tle7 8 cd ..Q.b6 1 5 .Q.xg5 f6 1 6 ..Q.f4 <tieS 1 7 .Q.xe5
9 ..Q.g5 ! ± ) 8 §e 1 + ..Q.e6 9 <tlg5 0-0 fe 1 8 §e1 'l1f6 + Estrin-Krzyston,
1 0 l'td3 g6 1 1 §xe6 fe 1 2 l'th3 corres 1 976.
'l1e 7 1 3 l'txe6+ l'txe6 14 <tlxe6 ± (b) 1 1 ... 'l1c8 1 2 §c1 �e6 1 3 <tla3
70 Italian Game
c3 1 4 be b6 1 S �d4 .Q.d7 1 6 f3
�xeS 1 7 �xc6 .Q.xc6 1 8 .Q.xcS
be with a good game for B l ack,
Kopylov-Govb inder, corres 1 976.
B22
s d 3 (66)
66
8
One might call this variation
the 'improved G iuoco Pianissimo'.
There arises a position, reminiscent
of the Spanish Game, in which
White plays d4 only after l ong
preparation, and sometimes omits
this move entirely, preferring to
attack the queenside via b4, a4 and
.Q.a3. This flexible strategy demands
precise and thought out operations
from Black.
Timman, G ipslis, and especially
M iles have had great influence in
the development of the variation .
(World Champion Karpov h as also
used this system in his 1 98 1 match
with Korchnoi - tr]
s d6
(a) S • . • dS? ! 6 e d �xdS 6 0-0
0-0 8 l:le 1 .Q.b6 9 �xeS �xeS
1 0 l:lxeS .Q.xf2+ 1 1 <&lh 1 �f6 1 2
.Q.gS :t Steinbuler-Steinitz, Man­
chester 1 874.
(b) S .•. 0-0 6 b4 .Q.b6 7 a4 a6 8
aS .Q.a7 9 0-0 d S ? ! 1 0 ed �xdS 1 1
itb3 �f6 1 2 �gS itd7 1 3 �d2
�d8 1 4 �df3 §e8 1 5 §e1 h6
1 6 �e4 ± Panchcn ko-VIad imirov,
USS R 1 978.
(c) S ... .Q.b6 6 0-0 d6 7 §e1 �g4
8 §e2 h6 9 h3 �f6 1 0 d4 0-0
1 1 .Q.b3 §e8 1 2 de �xeS 1 3 �xeS
de 1 4 itxd 8 §xd8 Makarychev­
=
l vanov, USS R 1 978.
(d) S a6! , as i n Karpov-Korchnoi,
••.
game 1 0, 1 98 1 m ay be a more
accurate move order, avoid ing the
6 b4 1ine.
6 b4
We consider other branches of
the variation.
(a) 6 �bd2 a6 (Also good is 6 ...
ite7 7 b4 .Q.b6 8 a4 aS 9 bS �d8!
1 0 .Q.b3 .Q.g4 1 1 �c4 .Q.c5 1 2 h3
.Q.hS 1 3 �e3 .Q.xe3 1 4 .Q.xe3 b6
1 S g4 .Q.g6 1 6 h4 hS 1 7 gS �d7
1 8 .Q.dS l:lb8 1 9 �d2 fS + Kopylov­
Zagorovsky, USSR 1 973) 7 .Q.b3
and further:
(at) 7 ... .Q.a7 8 �c4 h6 9 0-0 �e7
1 0 .Q.c2 0-0 1 1 �e3 �g6 1 2 �f5
�e6 Gaprindashvil i -Chiburdanidze,
USSR (match ) 1 978, and now 1 3
d4 ;!; Gipslis.
(a2) 7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 .Q.a7 9 §e1
(9 h 3 .Q.e6 1 0 .Q.c2 dS i s Karpov­
=
Korchnoi, game 8, 1 98 1 ) 9 ... .Q.e6
(reaching, by transposition , the
1 Oth game of the 1 98 1 Karpov­
Korchnoi match, which continued :
1 0 �f1 .Q.xb3 1 1 trxb3 itc8 1 2
�g3 l:le8 1 3 h 3 §b8 1 4 .Q.e3 ite6
1 S itxe6 fe 1 6 §c1 .Q.xe3 1 7
§xe3 with a miniscule advantage
for White. 8 ... h6 may be better: 9
§el .Q.e6! 1 0 �f1 .Q.a7 1 1 �g3 §e8
1 2 .Q.xe6 fe ! 1 3 d4 itd7 1 4 h3
ed 1 S cd itf7 1 6 .Q.e3 dS ! 1 7 eS
 Italian Game 71

�e4 + Dolmatov- Razuvayev, USSR �h7 1 5 tth5 ttf6 + ) 1 1 ... g4 1 2

1 979. <1;h2 §g8 1 3 �f1 ttf6 1 4 ttd2
�e7 + Timman-Smej kal, Wijk aan
(b) 6 ..Q.b3 ..Q.b6 (6 ... ..Q.e6 ! ?) 7 0-0
0-0 8 ..Q.g5 h6 9 .Q.h4 g5 ? ! (9 ... Zee 1 975.
..Q.e6 ! ? fol lowed by �-b8-d7 de­ (b) 8 ttb3 tte7 9 ..Q.g5 h6 10 ..Q.e3
serves consideration) 1 0 �xg5 ! hg ..Q.xe3 1 1 fe �g4 1 2 <l;e2 f5 1 3
1 1 ..Q.xg5 <l;g7 1 2 ttf3 §h8 1 3 <l;h 1 �bd2 f4 + Cafferty-Omelchenko,
tte7 1 4 ttg3 ± Kaidanov-Lukacs, corres 1 976.
Dubna 1 979. (c) 8 �bd2 0-0 9 0-0 �e7 (9 ...
6 ..Q.b6 tte7 ! ?) 10 Q.b3 �g6 1 1 �c4 ..Q.a7
7 a4 (67) 1 2 �a2 h6 1 3 §e1 §e8 1 4 h 3 ..Q.e6
=Ljubojevi c -F u rman, Portoroz­
67 Ljubliana 1 975.
8 8 tte7
(a) 8 . 0-0 9 �bd2 (9 ..Q.g5 Q.g4
..

1 0 4lbd2 h6 1 1 ..Q.h4 g5 1 2 .Q.g3

4lh5 1 3 tta2 4lf6 1 4 4lc4 ..Q.a7 1 5
4le3 M iles-Keg, Amsterdam 1 978,
and now Black should h ave con­
tinued 1 5 ... ..Q.xf3 1 6 -c'bf3 ttxf3
1 7 gf 4le7 unclear M iles) 9 ... ..Q.e6
1 0 .Q.b3 .Q.xb3 1 1 ttxb 3 .Q.a7 1 2
§a2 §e8 1 3 b5 4la5 1 4 ttc2 .Q.c5
7 a6 1 5 d4 t Dvoretzky-Levitt, USS R
Also possib le is 7 ... a5 8 b5 1 979.
�e7 (8 ... �b8 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 �bd2 (b) 8 . h6 9 4lbd2 0-0 1 0 .Q.a2
..

h6 1 1 ..Q.a2 �bd7 1 2 d4 �h7 1 3 ( 1 0 ttb3 4le7 1 1 .Q.a3 4lg6 1 2

�c4 ttf6 1 4 �e3 ed 1 5 cd ± d4 tte7 1 3 §a2 .Q.g4 1 4 b5 4lh5
Nunn-Crouch, London 1 978) 9 0-0 oo Panchenko-J ohannsen , Mexico
0-0 1 0 �bd2 �g6 1 1 ..Q.a2 c6 ( 1 1 1 978) .Q.a7 1 1 b5 4la5 1 2 .Q.a3
. . . d 5 ? 1 2 ..Q.a3 §e8 1 3 ttc2 ..Q.c7 §e8 1 3 ttc2 .Q.e6 14 .Q.xe6 §xe6
( 1 3 ... �h5 ! ? 1 4 g3 ..Q.h3 1 5 §fe 1 1 5 §fb 1 t M iles-Sanz, Montreal
ttf6 1 6 §ab1 lhb8 oo N i kolac) 1 978.
14 §fe 1 �h5 with chances for 9 a5 .Q.a7
both sides, M iles-N i kol ac, Dortmund 1 0 .Q.e3 4lg4
1 979. 1 1 .Q.xa 7 4lxa7
8 0-0 1 2 4la3 0-0
(a) 8 ..Q.g5 h6 9 ..Q.h4 g5 1 0 ..Q.g3 1 3 4lc2 §h8
�h5! 1 1 h4 ( 1 1 �xe5 �xg3 1 2 1 4 4le3 4lxe3 =

..Q.xf7+ <l;f8 1 3 4lg6+ <l;g7 1 4 hg Govbinder-Smyslov, USS R 1 979.

8 Evans Gambit
1 e4 d5
2 flf3 flc6
3 .Q.c4 .Q.c5
4 b4 (68}
68
8
This pawn sacrifice was invented
in 1 824 by the E ng lish chesspl ayer
[Captai n ] Wil liam Davis Evans, and
his n ame h as been retained in the
name of the gambit. Sacrificing a
pawn, White wins time for the
realization of the moves c3 and d4
and also obtains the lead in devel­
opment. I n recent times rel i able
methods of defence have been
found for Black, involving, as a
ru le, the timely return of the
gambitted p awn. The Evans Gam b it
is rarely met i n contemporary
tournament praxis.
A 4 ... -'lxb4
B 4 ... .Q.b6
A
4 .Q.xb4
5 c3
Weaker is 5 0-0 .Q.e7 {also good is
5 ... flf5 6 d4 ed 7 e5 d5 + ) 6 c3
flf6 7 d4 d6 + Podgorny-F i l i p ,
Czechoslovakia 1 945.
A 1 5 ... .Q.c5
A2 5 ... .Q.a5
A3 5 ... .Q.e7
Not conducive to developmen t
is 5 ... .Q.f8 ? ! {still worse is 5 . . .
.Q.d6? 6 d4 "fre7 7 0-0 flf6 8 flg5
0-0 9 f4 ± Bilguer) 6 d4 "frc7 7
·
0-0 d6 8 "frb3 g6 9 de de 1 0 §d 1
.Q.h6 1 1 flbd2 "frf6 1 2 .Q.a3 ±
Chigorin-S teinitz, Vienna 1 882.
A1
5 .Q.c5
6 d4 ed
7 0-0
After 7 cd B l ack has a choice
between 7 . . . .Q.b4+ 8 <11£ 1 "fre7
unclear and 7 ... .Q.b6 transposing
to the main line.
7 d6
(a) 7 ... de ? ! 8 bf7+ (8 flxc3 ! ?
or 8 "frb3 ! ? Keres) 8 ... 'llxf7 9
"frd5+ 'llf8 1 0 "fixeS d6 1 1 "frxc3 ± .
(b) 7 ... d 3 9 flg5 flh6 9 flxf7
flxf7 1 0 .Q.xf7+ 'llxf7 1 1 "frh5+
 Evans Gambit 73

g6 1 2 l'!txcS d6 1 3 l'!tdS+ -'l.c6 69

1 4 l'!txd 3 § e8 1 S f4 �g8 1 6 ..Q.b2 8
dS 1 7 c4! ± Du rscn-Kramer,
Ebcnzce 1 930.
8 cd ..Q.b6
9 {lc3 (69}
The strongest continuatio n . We
exam ine other m oves.
(a) 9 ..Q.b2 {lge7 (9 ... {lf6 1 0 d S
{laS 1 1 ..Q.d 3 sec 9 dS) 1 0 {lgS d S
1 1 e d {laS 1 2 d6 {lxc4 1 3 de l'!tdS
1 4 {lc3 l'!txgS ( 1 4 ... {lxb2 1 S
{lxdS {lxd 1 1 6 §axd 1 c6 +
Unzicker) 1 S l'!ta4+ c6 1 6 l'!txc4 ..Q.xf6 gf 1 3 {lxf6+ M8 1 4 {lg5
..Q.h3 + Keres. {lxc4 1 5 tth5 �g7 1 6 tt f7+ �kh6
(b) 9 d S {laS (9 ... {lcc7 10 eS! or 1 7 tth5+ = ) 1 1 ... �xf7 1 2 {ld5
9 ... {leS 10 {)xeS de 1 1 ..Q.a3 §e8 ( 1 2 ... {lac6? 1 3 ..Q.xe7 {lxe7
gives White a dangerous attack) 1 0 1 4 {lg5+ �g6 1 S {lf4+ M6 1 6 e5+ !
..Q.b2 {le7 ! (worse is 1 0 ... {lf6 1 1 wins Chigo ri n-Gunsberg, Havana
..Q.d 3 0-0 1 2 {lc3 c6 1 3 {le2 -'l.g4 1 890) 1 3 ..Q.xe7 §xe7 1 4 {lg5+
1 4 ttd2 §c8 1 S ttgS ..Q.xf3 1 6 gf �8 1 S tth5 h6 1 6 ttg6 ! hg 1 7
cd 1 7 �h 1 ! ± Anderssen) 1 1 Q.d3 {lf6+ Chigorin .
=

( 1 1 ..Q.xg7? §g8 1 2 ..Q.f6 {lxc4 1 0 ..Q.bS

1 3 tta4+ ttd7 1 4 ttxc4 § xg2+ ! If 1 0 tta4, then 1 0 ... ..Q.d 7.
wins) 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2 {lc3 {lg6 1 3 10 M8
{le2 cS 1 4 ttd2 f6 + Andcrssen­ After 1 0 ... ..Q.d7 ( 1 0 ... -'l.xf3
Zukertort, Berli n (match) 1 868. 1 1 gf and ..Q.e3+ Keres) 1 1 e5 !
(b) 9 h3 {lf6 1 0 §e1 h6 ( 1 0 ... {lge7 1 2 ..Q.g5 de 1 3 {ld5 ttc8 1 4
0-0 1 1 -'logS ! ) 1 1 ..Q.a3 0-0 12 {lc3 ..Q.e7 {lxe7 1 5 {lxe7 �xe7 1 6 Q.xd7
§e8 1 3 §c 1 {lh 7 14 §e3 {laS 1 5 ttxd7 1 7 § e 1 White has compen­
..Q.d3 ..Q.e6 with an extra pawn and sation for the sacrificed pawn .
solid position for B l ack. Mariotti­ 1 1 ..Q.e3 {lge7
G i igori c , Venice 1 97 1 . 1 2 a4 a5
9 ..Q.g4 1 3 ..Q.c4 ..Q.h5
(a) 9 ... {lf6 1 0 e5 de 1 1 ..Q.a3 ± W ith this move B l ack parries
Keres, but 1 1 ... {laS ! u nclear the threat 1 4 ..Q.xf7. A mistaken
U nzicker. try would be 1 3 ... tte8? 1 4 {lb5
(b) 9 ... {la5 1 0 ..Q.g5 {le7 ( 1 0 ... f6 and on 1 4 ... fS, 1 5 h 3 ! ± .
1 1 ..Q.f4 {lxc4 1 2 tta4+ ttd7 1 3 1 4 §c1 ! =
ttxc4 tt f7 1 4 {ldS g 5 1 5 ..Q.g3 ..Q.e6 The move of the E nglish master
1 6 tta4+ ..Q.d7 1 7 tta3 §c8 1 8 Cafferty, allowing White to seize
§fe1 ± Chigorin-Steinitz, London the initiative, which is worth the
1 883) 1 1 ..Q.xf7+ ( 1 1 {ld5 f6 1 2 sacrifice of the p awn.
 74 Evans Gambit
A2
5 �a5 (70}
A2 1 6 0-0
A22 6 d4
6 'C)fu3 ! ? M6 7 0-0 �b6 8 d4 d6
(8 ... �a5 9 *a4 �xc4 1 0 *xc4 :l: )
9 d e (9�g5 ! ?) 9 ... �xe5 1 0 �xeS
de 1 1 a4 a6 1 2 �h 1 oo Nunn­
HUbner, J ohanncsburg 1 98 1 .
A21
6 0-0 d6
(a) 6 ... *f6 7 d4 �h6 8 d 5 �dB
9 *a4 -'lb6 10 �gS *d6 1 1 �a3
±Chigorin-Steinitz, Havana (match)
1 889) 8 d 5 ! ? (8 -'lg5 *g6 ! ? oo �e7
9 *a4 �b6 10 �a3 �g4 1 1 h3 hS
1 2 l:ib1 a6 1 3 l:ixb6 cb 14 l:i d 1
§b8 oo , Timman-Kurajica, W i j k aan
Zee 1 977.
(b) 6 ... �f6 7 d4 and further:
(bl ) 7 ... ed? 8 �a3 d6 9 d S ! �e4
1 0 l:ie1 �xc3 1 1 ed+ �d7 1 2
�e5+ �xeS 1 3 *xd4 f6 1 4 �xc3
winning. Kovacs-Marinkovi c , corres
1 979.
(b2) 7 ... 0-0! 8 �xe5 (8 de �xe4
9 .-'ld5 �cS 1 0 �g5 *e7 1 1 *c2
g6 1 2 f4 -'lb6 1 3 �h 1 d6 + )
8 . . . �xe4 9 .-'la3 (9 �xf7? r:ixf7
1 0 .-'lxf7+ �xf7 1 1 d 5 �e7 1 2 *a4
.-'lxc3 1 3 �xc3 �xc3 1 4 *c4
�exd5 1 S �d2 bS 1 6 *b 3 *h4
1 7 �c3 *c4 1 8 *xc4 be + ) 9 . . .
d6 1 0 �xc6 b e 1 1 *a4 _g_xc3 1 2
�xc3 �xc3 1 3 *xc6 _g_e6 1 4 Q. d 3
�d5 1 S _g_e4 �b6 1 6 *c2 §b8
1 7 11xh7+ �h8 Bilguer.
=
7 d4 Q.b6!
The Lasker Defence. Black pre­
pares to return the pawn in order
to obtain positional improvement.
(a) 7 ... ..ll d 7 8 *b3 *e7 (8 ...
*f6 ! ?) 9 de de 10 §d1 0-0-0 1 1
�bd2 ( 1 1 -'lxf7 -'lb6 1 2 -'ldS �f6
+ Keres) 1 1 ... �h6 1 2 -'la3 *f6
1 3 �d5 ! ..ll b 6 1 4 �c4 §he8 1 S
§ab 1 with better chances for
White, Skotoren ko-Timeyer, corres
1 976.
(b) 7 ... �g4 (7 ... ed cd Q.b6 see A)
8 *a4 ed 9 cd a6 1 0 .-'ldS -'lb6
1 1 .-'lxc6+ be 1 2 *xc6+ .-'ld7 1 3
*c3 �e7 14 �a3 0-0 1 S �c4 d5
1 6 ed �xd5 = Chigorin-Steinitz,
Havana (match) 1 892.
8 de
8 a4 .-'lg4 9 .-'lbS .-'lxf3 1 0 *xf3
a6 1 1 ..ll x c6 be 1 2 a5 ..ll a 7 1 3 ..lla 3
*f6 1 4 *e2 �e7 1 5 de *xd5+ +
Svidersky-Gunsberg, Monte Carlo
1 904.
8 de
9 *b3
(a) 9 ..llx f7+ �xf7 1 0 �eS+ �e8 !
1 1 *h5+ g 6 1 2 �xg6 �f6 + .
(b) 9 *xd8+ �xd 8 1 0 �xeS 11e6
1 1 �d2 �e7 1 2 -'la3 f6 ! + .
9 *f6
1 0 ..llg S *g6
11 lld S �ge7
1 2 .-'lxe7 �xe7
1 3 ..ll x c6 *xc6
1 4 �xeS *e6 +
Black stand s better.
 Evans Gambit 75

A22 (b) 7 ... d3 8 'l'tb3 'l'tf6 9 e5 'l'tg6

6 d 4 ! (71) 1 0 �el {)ge7 1 1 ..Q.a3 with a
Staunton 's move. This contin­ strong attack for White.
uation is considered strongest, as it (c) 7 ... de (the 'compromised
does not permit B lack to adopt defence'; after 8 'l'tb 3 White obtains
the Lasker defence. a dangerous attack , for example:
A221 6 ... ed (cl ) 8 . .. 'l'tf6 9 eS 'l'tg6 (9 ...
A222 6 . . . d6 �xeS ? 1 0 §e1 wins) 10 �c3 �ge7
1 1 ..Q.a3 ! 0-0 1 2 §ad l �e8 1 3 ..Q.d3
71 *h S 1 4 �e4 �xeS 1 S {)xeS 'l'txeS
8 1 6 ..Q.b2 ± Lasker.
(c2) 8 . . 'l'te7 9 �xc3 'l'tb4 (9 ...
.

{)f6? 10 {)dS ! �xdS 1 1 ed {)eS 1 2

�xeS 'l'txeS 1 3 ..Q.b2 with an un­
stoppable attack for White, Fischer­
Fine, USA 1 964) 1 0 ..Q.xf7+ <lid8
1 1 ..Q.gS+ �ge7 1 2 {)dS 'l'txb 3 1 3
ab ..Q.b4 1 4 §a4 aS 1 S {)xb4 �xb4
1 6 mal ;!; _
8 cd
Weaker are : 8 �gS dS 9 ed (9 ..Q.xdS ? �xdS
(a) 6 ... �xd4 7 �xeS �e6 8 �xf7 ! 1 0 'l'thS g6 1 1 'l'th6 ..Q.e6! 1 2 �xe6
<lixf7 9 'l'thS+ and 1 0 'l'txaS ± . fe 1 3 ed 'l'txd S 1 4 ..Q.gS �f8 l S
(b) 6 ... b 5 ( Leonhardt) 7 .Q.d5 ! cd �xd4 1 6 �d2 §fS ! wins Estrin­
( 7 ..Q.xb5 �xd4 8 �xd4 e d 9 'l'txd4 Condaly, corres 1 971 ) 9 ... �eS
�f6 unclear) 7 ... ed 8 'l'tb3 'l'tf6 (Bad is 9 . . . {)xdS ? due to 1 0 �xf7
9 e S ! ± Maroczy. <lixf7 1 1 'l'thS+ ± ) 1 0 §e1 (1 0 'l'td4
(c) 6 ... ..Q.b6 7 de h6 8 'l'td S 'l'te7 f6) 1 0 ... �xc4 1 1 'l'ta4+ c6 1 2
9 ..Q.a3 'l'te6 1 0 'l'td3 ± Tartakower­ 'l'txc4 ( 1 2 d e b S 1 3 'l'txb5 �d6 + )
Ch ajes, Carlsbad 1 923. 1 2 . . . 'l'txd5 1 3 'l'txdS cd 1 4 ..Q.a3
A221 ..Q.d8 l S cd h6 1 6 {)f3 {)£6 1 7 {)c3
7 0-0 �ge7! 0-0 + Bilguer.
The best continuation. Black 8 dS
aims for rapid development and 9 ed {)xdS
prepares counterplay i n the centre. Worthy of attention is 9 ... bS ! ?
Other defences lead to an advantage 1 0 ..Q.b3 ( 1 0 AxbS 'l'txdS 1 1 'l'ta4
for White. ..Q.d7 1 2 ..Q.a3 �b8! 1 3 Ac4 �xd4!
(a) 7 ... d6 8 'l'tb3 ! ? (8 cd .Q.b6 see + or 12 ..Q.c4 'l'tfS 1 3 'l'td l Ae6 ) =

A) 'l'tf6 9 e5 ! de 1 0 §el ..Q.a6 1 0 ... �xdS ( 1 0 ... �b4? 1 1 ..Q.d2 !

( 1 0 ... {)h6 1 1 ..Q.g5 '1'tf5 1 2 '1'ta3 ± ) ± 1 1 'l'te2+ �ce7 1 2 'l'txbS+ c6 =
1 1 Q.g5 'l'tf5 1 2 �xeS �xeS 1 3 f4 Unzicker.
± M orphy-K inning, Birmi ngham 1 0 Aa3
1 8S8. 1 0 'l'tb3 �ce7
=.
 76 Evans Gambit

10 Jle6 (d) 7 ... "ite7 9 d5 �d4 9 �xd4

11 Jlb5 Jlb4
12 Jlxc6+ be
13 Jlxb4 �xb4
14 "ita4 "itd6=
A222
6 d 6 (72)
72
w 8 de
7 "itb3
(a) 7 de de 8 "itxd8+ �xd8 9 �xeS
Jle6 + .
(b) 7 "ita4 ed 8 �xd4 �ge7 9 Jlg5
"itd7 ! 1 0 Q.xe7 ( 1 0 Jlb5 a6! 1 1
Jlxc6 �xc6 1 2 �xc6 Jlb6! + ) 1 0 ...
�xd4. 1 1 "itxa5 �c6 1 2 *&5 "itxe 7
1 3 "itxg7 "itxe4+ 1 4 Jle2 'l'te5 +
Maroczy.
(c) 7 Jlg5 f6 8 "itb3 fg 9 Jlxg8
"itf6 1 0 de de 1 1 0-0 Jlb6 1 2
�xg5 { 1 2 �fd2 Jlg4! + ) 1 2 ... �aS
1 3 "itf7+ "itxf7 1 4 Jlxf7 'lle 7 +
U nzicker.
7 "itd7
(a) 7 ... 'l'tf6 8 d5 �d4 9 "ita4+
Jld7 1 0 "itxa5 b6 1 1 "ita6 ± Keres.
{b) 7 ... �xd4 8 �xd4 ed 9 Q.xf7+
'\\>f8 1 0 0-0 "ite 7 1 1 Jlc4 �f6 1 2
cd �xd4 1 3 "itf3+ �f6 1 4 �c3 ±
Thomas-Unzicker, Hastings 1 950/
51 .
(c) 7 ... ed 8 Jlxf7+ 'lle 7 9 e5 de
1 0 0-0 ± Alexander-Yates, 1 932.
(9 "ita4+ "itd7 1 0 "itxa5 b6 1 1
�xd4 ba 1 2 Q.b5 ed 1 3 Q.xd7+
Jlxd7 14 cd ;!;) 9 ... ed 10 0-0
( 1 0 'l'ta4+ Jld7 1 1 "itxa5 'l'txe4+
1 2 '\\>f l d 3 1 3 �d2 "ite2+ 1 4 '\\>g 1
"ite 1 + 1 5 �f1 d2 1 6 Q.xd2 "itxa1 +)
10 ... Jlb6 1 1 Q.b2 with an initiative
for the sacrificed pawn . Keres.
(a) 8 a4 Jlb6 9 aS �xaS 10 !haS
.Q.xa5 1 1 de �h6! 1 2 e6 {1 2 .11 x h6
gh 1 3 0-0 §g8 + or 1 3 ed 0-0 +
but 1 2 0-0! ? deserves consideration)
1 2 ... fe 1 3 �g5 c6 + .
{b) 8 0-0 Jlb6 9 Jlb5 a6 1 0 Jlxc6
{ 1 0 Q.a4 Jla7 ' + ) "itxc6 1 1 de Q.e6
and 0-0-0 + .
8 Q.b6 (73)
8 ... de (8 ... �xeS? 9 �xeS de
10 Jlxf7+ 'l'txf7 1 1 "itb5+ ±) 9 0-0
Jlb6 and further:
(a) 10 Jlb5 'l'te6 1 1 "itxe6 Q.xe6
1 2 Jlxc6 be 1 3 �xeS �e7 +
Dursen-Keres, corres 1 935.
(b) 1 0 Jla3 �aS 1 1 �xeS �xb3
1 2 ab "ite6 1 3 Q.xe6 ..Q.xe6 + Keres.
(c) 1 0 § d 1 (The best continuation)
1 0 ... "ite7 1 1 a4! (Weaker is 1 1
!:IdS a6 1 2 �bd2 "it f6 1 3 m1
.Q.e6 1 4 Q.g5 *&6 + Lisitsin­
Rabinovitch, USS R 1 940 or 1 1 Q.a3
�H6 1 2 �bd2 �ge7 + ) w ith an
excellent attacking position for
White, i .e.:
( c 1) 1 1 .. . .Q.e6 ( Bad is 1 1 . . . �aS ?
1 2 Jlxf7+ "itxf7 1 3 l:ld8+ '\\>e 7 1 4
Jlg5+ wins) 1 2 a S .llxc4 1 3 "itxc4
"itc5 1 4 'C'tf1 �xa5 1 5 §d5 ±
Aronin.
(c2) 1 1 ... �h6 12 aS Jlxa5 1 3
Jla3 'l't f6 1 4 Jlb5 Jld7 1 5 c5 ±
Keres.
 Evans Gambit 77

( c3 ) 1 1 ... a5 1 2 .Q.d5 .Q.g4 1 3 74

§d3 .Q.e6 1 4 .Q.a3 ltf6 1 5 -tlbd 2
-tlge7 1 6 -tlc4 ± Shaposhn i kov­ w
Weltmander, USS R 1 958.
( c4 ) 1 1 ... a6 1 2 .Q.a3 lt f6 1 3 a5
.Q.a7 1 4 �d5 -tlge7 1 5 §a2 0-0
1 6 .Q.xc6 b e 1 7 §ad2 §ab8? ( 1 7
. . . .Q.g4! 1 8 §d3 ± ) 1 8 §d8 ! .Q.g4
1 9 ltx b8! 1 -0 Ncilscn-Bohm ,
cor res 1 979.

73
w A32 6 d4
A3 1
6 *b3 -tlh6
7 d4
I nteresting is 7 d 3 ! ? -tla5 8 ltb5
-tlxc4 9 .Q.xh6 gh ( 9 ... -tld6? 1 0
ltxe5 f6 1 1 lth5+ ± ) 1 0 dc Nad­
Rebine, corres 1 979, and now
instead of 1 0 ... f6? 1 1 -tlh4! c6
1 2 lta4 d6 1 3 ltd 1 .Q.e6 1 4 lth5+
9 .Q.b5 *d7 1 5 -tlf5 :l:, Black should h ave
9 ed -tla5 1 0 ltb 5 -tlxc4 1 1 played 1 0 ... -tlf6 ! + ( 1 1 -tlxe5 ? c6
ltxc4 ltxd6 + Pfleger-Unz icker, wins) .
Bamberg 1 963. 7 -tla5
9 a6 8 lta4 -tlxc4
1 0 .Q.a4 lte6 9 ltxc4
1 1 .Q.xc6+ be 9 .Q.xh6? -tlb6 + +
1 2 0-0 §b8 + 9 d5 ! ?
Shandon Moe-Bottl ik, corres 1 974. 9 ... -tlg4! ? 1 0 h 3 ( 1 0 de d6! )
Now White should have played 1 0 ... -tlf6 1 1 de d 5 ! 1 2 ed cd with
1 3 ltxe6 ! fe ( 1 3 ... ..Q.xe6 1 4 ..Q.a3 ! a promisi ng position for Black,
:l: ) 1 4 ed cd 1 5 ..Q.a3 :l: . Ravin sky and Konstantinopolsky.
Thus Staunton's 6 d4! gives 10 ed e4
White a sufficient attack for the 1 1 -tle5 f6!
sacrificed pawn . We think that 1 2 ..Q.xh6 gh
Black's most promising try to 1 3 d6 fe
achieve equal i ty is 6 ... ed 7 0-0 1 4 de "ilrxe7 +
-tlge 7 ! ( A221 ) . Aronson-Umansky, corres 1 979. I n
A3 the game, Black achieved a n equal
5 ..Q.e7 (74} endgame after 1 5 ltb5+ c6 1 6 ltxe5
A 3 1 6 ltb3 ltxe5 1 7 de §g8 1 8 -tld2 ..Q.f5.
 78 Evans Gambit
A32
6 d4 cDaS!
The best answer. Dangerous is
6 ... ed 7 itb3 cDaS 8 ilxf7+ �8
9 ita4 'lixf7 1 0 itxa5 de 1 1 cDxc3
± Bilguer.
7 cDxeS
( a) 7 .Q.d3 and further:
( a1 ) 7 ... ed 8 cd d5 9 c5 ( 9 ita4+ !
cDc6 1 0 ed itxd5 1 1 cDc3 ilb4 1 2
.Q.d 2 .Q.xc3 1 3 ilxc3 cDe 7 1 4 0-0
· .Q.b6 (75)
with an in itiative for White . Rav­
insky ) 9 ... cS 1 0 de cDc6 1 1 0-0
AxeS 1 2 cDc3 ilg4 1 3 .Q.e2 eDge 7
1 4 cDa4 .Q.xf3 1 5 cDxc5 ilxe2 1 6
itxe2 ;!; Vakulenko-Sm irnov1 USS R
1 976.
( a2) 7 ... d6! 8 de ( 8 ita4+ ! ? c6
9 .Q.a3 b5 1 0 itc2 itc7 ± Alexander­
Euwe1 Maastricht 1 946) 8 ... de
9 cDxe5 cDf6 ( 9 ... ile6 1 0 0-0
cDf6 1 1 itc2 cDd7 1 2 cDf3 .Q.c4
1 3 � d 1 itc8 1 4 .Q.g5 ilxg5 1 5
cDxgS cDb6 ro Erland sson-Bromberg1
corres 1 976) 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 itc2
cDg4! with a good game for Black.
Ravinsky.
( b ) 7 .Q.xf7+ 'lixf7 8 cDxe5+ M8
( 8 ... 'lie8 ! ? M inev) 9 itf3+ cDf6
1 0 g4 d6 1 1 g5 de 1 2 gf llxf6
1 3 de cDc6 1 4 ef itxf6 1 5 itg3
iteS l nkov-M inev1 Bulgaria 1 977.
=
7 cDxc4
8 cDxc4 d5
9 ed itxd5
1 0 cDe3 itd8
1 0 ... ita5 1 1 0-0 cDf6 1 2 c4
0-0 ( 1 2 ... c6 ! ? ) 1 3 d 5 b5 ( 1 3 ...
c6? ! 14 d6 ± M inev) 14 cDd2 be
1 5 cDdxc4 ita6 1 6 .Q.b2 ;!; Timman­
Tatai, Amsterdam 1 977.
1 1 0.{) ()f6
1 2 c4 0.{)
1 3 cDc3 c6
1 4 .Q.b2 ita5 =
Tartakower-Trifunovic Paris 1 950.
1
The game continued 1 5 d5 .Q.a3
1 6 .Q.xa3 itxa3 1 7 itb3 and now
Black should have played 1 7 ...
ita5 = accord ing to Keres.
Thus the variation 5 . . . �e7
gives Black possibility to reach a
fu ll-blooded game .
B
4
The Evans Gambit Decl ined.
Other methods of decl ining the
gambit are less favou rable for
Black.
( a) 4 ... b5 5 11xb5 .Q.xb4 6 c3 !
.Q.a5 7 0-0 ± .
( b ) 4 ... ile7 5 c3! cDf6 6 itb3 0-0
7 cDgS ite8 8 d3 h6 9 cDf3 ;!; ,
( c ) 4 ... d 5 5 ed cDb4 6 0-0 cDf6
7 cDe5 cDbxdS 8 d4 11d6 9 ilg5 c6
1 0 cDbd2 0-0 1 1 itf3 h6 1 2 ilh4
ile6 1 3 §ab1 ;!; Schiffers-Pilsbury 1
Nuremburg 1 896.
75
w
5 a4
Other continuations are also
worthy of attention , namely :
( a) 5 bS ( 5 c3 cDf6 6 d3 d6 is
considered under the I talian Game )
and further:
 Evans Gambit 79

(a1 ) S ... �aS 6 �xeS �h6 7 d4 (b) 8 ... �f6 ! ? 9 d 3 �xd S 1 0

d6 8 .ll x h6 gh 9 Q.xf7+ (9 �xf7 Q.xd5 h6 1 1 d4 0-0 1 2 de �xb4
l'tf6 1 0 �xh8 �xc4 1 1 c3 lle6 + 1 3 .Q.b3 .Q.cS 1 4 c3 �c6 1 S l'td3
Bi lguer) '1Te7 1 0 �c3 de 1 1 l'tf3 �e7 1 6 �h4 d5 1 7 llc2 f5 1 8
Q.g4! 1 2 l'txg4 '1Txf7 1 3 �dS §f8 ef §xf6 1 9 l'th 7+ '1Tf7 20 .lle 3
1 4 de l'tgS 1 S l'td7+ '1Tg6 1 6 �e7+ itd6 oo Agrinsky-Holovkin, USSR
'1Tg7 1 7 �fS+ '1Th8 + Unzicker. 1 96 1 .
(a2) S ... �d4 6 �xd4 Q.xd4 7 c3 8 ed e4
Q.b6 8 0-0 (Agai nst 8 d4, 8 . .. l'th4 8 ... �d4 ! ? oo Knyshenko.
9 0-0 �f6 is good) 8 ... d6 9 d4 9 de ef! ?
�e7 1 0 de �g6 ! ? 1 1 ed 0-0! A suggestion of Moiseyev and
1 2 de l'th4 1 3 �d2 llg4 1 4 lle2 Ravin sky . After 9 ... 0-0 1 0 .Q.b2
fS 1 S g3 l'th3 1 6 ef �h4! u nclear, ( 1 0 �g1 ? l'tf6 wins) 1 0 ... ef 1 1
Winkei-Holovkin , USS R 1 960. l'txf3 de 1 2 l'tc3 §e8+ 1 3 'lifl
(b) S .llb 2 d6 6 a4 a6 7 b5 ab 8 ab l'tg5 1 4 h4 l'th6 1 5 a5 .Q.a7 1 6
§xa1 9 .llx a1 �d4 (worse is 9 ... h5 ..ll e 6 1 7 §h4 White has the
�a5 10 lla2 .llg4 1 1 d 3 �f6 1 2 initiative. Sokolsky-Goldenov,
0-0 t Kostic-Yates, Hague 1 921 . USSR 1 94S.
or 9 ... �b8 1 0 d4 ed 1 1 Q.xd4 1 0 l'txf3 l'te7+
..ll x d4 1 2 l'txd4 �f6 1 3 0-0 t 1 1 '1Td 1 de = (76)
Tartakower-Yates, Carlsbad 1 929)
1 0 �xd4 ( 1 0 .ll x d4 ed 1 1 0-0 �f6 76
1 2 d 3 0-0 1 3 �bd2 d5 = Keres) w
1 0 ... ed 1 1 c3 �f6 1 2 0-0 0-0
1 3 d3 d5 Tartakower-Rubinstein ,
=

Hague 1 921 .
5 a6
(a) S ... �xb4? 6 a5 .Q.c5 7 c3 �c6
8 0-0 d6 9 d4 ed 1 0 cd .ll b 4 1 1 d5
�xa5 1 2 l'ta4+ ± ± Bilguer.
(b) S ... aS 6 b5 �d4 7 �xeS (7
�xd4 .ll x d4 8 c3 and d4 ± Keres)
7 ... l'tf6 8 �f3 ± U nzicker. (a) 1 2 §e1 ..lle 6 1 3 ..llb 2 (after 1 3
6 �c3 .Q.xe6 fe 1 4 l'tg4 0·0·0 1 5 §xe6
6 c3 �f6 7 d3 d6 sec I tal ian l'td7 1 6 l'te2 §hc8 and Black has
Game . the initiative) 1 3 ... 0-0-0 1 4 ..ll x g7
6 �f6 l'txb4 1 5 ..ll x e6 fe =, for example:
7 �d5 �xd5 16 ..llc 3 l'td6 with the threat of
We examine 7 . . . �xe4 8 0-0 §hf8.
and fu rther: (b) 1 2 ..ll b 2 ..ll e6 13 .llx g7 ( 1 3 §e1
(a) 8 . de (8 ... 0-0 9 d3 �f6 1 0
.. see 1 2 §e1 ) 1 3 ... §g8 14 ..llx e6
Q.g5 d 6 1 1 �d2 ± Kan-Botvinnik, ( 1 4 .llf6 .llg 4 1 5 .Q.xe7 .Q.xf3+ 1 6 gf
USS R 1 929) 9 d 3 �f6 10 Q.gS t . §xe7) and further:
80 Evans Gambit
(b 1 } 1 4 ... fe 1 5 Q.c3 ( 1 5 *11 5 +
�d7 1 6 ..ll.e 5 �d7 1 7 ..ll.e 5 �af8
gives Black an active game} 1 5 ...
0-0.0 1 6 ..ll.f6 -ltxb4 1 7 Q.xd8
�xd8 and B lack has a serious
initiative for the exchange.
(b2} 1 4 ... � xg7 1 5 ..ll.c 8 ( 1 5 ..ll.f5
-ltxb4 1 6 �e1 �f8 + ) 1 5 ... *xb4
1 6 ..ll. x b7 �d8 1 7 ..ll.c 6+ �8 1 8
-lte2 �g6 and the hopeless position
of the White k ing gives B l ack an
excel lent game.
Analysis of the position of
diagram 76 is cred ited to the
Soviet theoreticians Moiseyev and
Ravinsky.
One may conclude that the
Evans Gambit Declined is ful ly
satisfactory for B lack and can be
recom mended for practical appli­
cation .
9 Two Kn i g h t ' s Defe n ce : 4d4

1 e4 e5 next chapter.
2 ?:lf3 ?:lc6 We also consider other possibil­
3 _g_c4 ?:lf6 (77) ities for White on the fourth move.
(a) 4 0-0 ?:lxe4 (4 ... _g_cs is the
77 I talian Game) 5 ?:lc3 (On 5 d4 or
5 \te2 Black answers 5 ... d5 w ith a
w
good game.) 5 ... ?:lxc3 (5 ... ?:lf6
6 �e 1 _g_e7 7 ?:lxe5 ?:lxe5 8 �xeS
d6 9 §e 1 0-0 ) 6 de and further:
=

(al ) 6 ... \tf6? (6 ... _g_e7 7 \td5

0-0 8 ?:lxe5 ?:lxe5 9 \txe5 d6 ) =

7 ?:lg5 ?:ld8 8 f4 'l'b6+ 9 *h 1 f6

1 0 ?:le4 f5 1 1 ?:lg3 g6 1 2 fe _g_g7
1 3 _g_gs ?:le6 1 4 ?:lxf5 _g_xe5 1 5
'l'e2 1 -0 Trap i -Ornstei n , Decin
The move 3 ... ?:lf6 is the most 1 976.
active reply to 3 _g_c4 and leads to (a2) 6 ... f6 7 ?:lh4 g6 ( Both 7 ...
the Two Knights' Defence. This 'l'e7? 8 ?:lf5 'l'c5 9 .Q.b3 followed
opening was d iscovered i n the by Q.e3 ± , and 7 . . . ?:le7? 8 _g_d3 !
second half of the 1 9th century . g6 9 f4 .Q.g7 1 0 fe fe 1 1 .Q.g5! c6
The Two Knights' Defence is one 1 2 ?:lf5 ! ±± Saburov-Liuke , corres
of the sharpest and most interesting 1 904 are bad .) 8 f4 f5 9 ?:lf3 (9
open games. The various combin­ ?:lxf5? doesn 't work because of
ational possibilities attract the 9 ... d 5 ! , but not bad is 9 g3 Q.c5+
attention of tou rnament p l ayers 1 0 *g2 with an initiative for the
and theoreticians to the Two pawn) 9 ... e4 1 0 ?:lg5 _g_cs+ 1 1
Knights. The principal methods of *h l \te7 ( 1 1 ... 'l'f6 ? 1 2 'l'd5 !
carry i ng out the attack and defence ± ) 1 2 .Q.f7+! *f8 1 3 b 4 _g_d6 ( 1 3
accord ing to contemporary inter­ ... _g_b6 oo - G l igoric ) 1 4 _g_b3 ?:ld8
pretations are considered below. 1 5 _g_e3 w ith an excellent position
4 d4 for White, fully compensating for
4 ?:lg5 is the subject of the the sacrificed p awn.
82 Two Knight's Defence: 4d4

(a3) 6 ... h6! ? 7 itd5 itf6 8 §e1 interesting is 6 ... g6! ? 7 h3 .Q.g7
.lld 6 9 {)xe5 .llx e5 10 f4 d6 1 1 fe 8 .lle 3 0-0 9 *d2 �h7 1 0 g4 {)d7
de ( 1 1 ... {)xe5 ! ? 1 2 .Q.b5+ �f8) 1 1 §g1 {)b6 with a complicated
1 2 llb5 .lld 7 1 3 .llx c6 llxc6 1 4 position, Spassky-Beliavsky, USS R
§xe5+ ( 1 4 itxc5+ ) 1 4 ... �f8 1 98 1 .) 7 .Q.c3 0-0 8 h3 .llc 6 9 {)d5
=

1 5 itc5+ �g8 1 6 §e2 §d8 1 7 .1le3 -'lxd5 1 0 ed {)b8 1 1 {)h4 c6 1 2

�h7 + Mestei -Makarichev, Hastings de be 1 3 �f3 d5 oo , H erzog-Hazai,
1 979/80. Keszthely, 1 98 1 . - tr.]
(b) 4 �c3 �xe4 (4 ... .Q.c5 5 d3 d6 After 4 ... .ll e 7 we have the
see I talian Game) and further: fol l owing possibili ties :
(b1 ) 5 .Q.xf7+ �xf7 7 �xe4 .lle 7 ! ? (c 1 ) 5 �c3 d6 6 h3 0-0 7 0-0
(more energetic i s 6 ... d 5 ! 7 �fg5+ (7 a3 �d4! 8 �xd4 ed 9 �e2 c5
�e8 ! 8 l'!H3 ite7 + or 7 �eg5+ 1 0 c3 d 5 ! 1 1 e d �xd5 1 2 cd cd
'l;g8 ! 8 d3 h6 +) 7 d4 d5 8 �eg5+ 1 3 �xd4 �b6 1 4 �c2 .Q.f5 with a
�g8 9 de h6 1 0 �h3 llg4 1 1 llf4 good game for Black, Rel lstab-
itd7 1 2 �hg1 g5 1 3 .Q.g3 d4 1 4 Sokolov, Sarajevo 1 958) 7 ... �a5
a3 §d8 1 5 itd2 itd5+ Barua­ 8 llb3 �xb3 9 ab c5 (9 ... c6 ! ?)
Taker, I nd ia 1 979. 1 0 ..Q.e3 .lle 6 1 1 �d2 d 5 1 2 ed
(b2) 5 �xe4 d 5 6 .Q.d3 (worse is �xd5 1 3 �xd 5 .Q.xd5 = Zita­
6 .Q.h5 de 7 �xe5 itd5 ! 8 d4 l'!hg2 Smyslov, Moscow-Prague 1 946.
9 §fl a6 1 0 llxc6+ be 1 1 ith5 (c2) 5 �bd2 (5 c3 ? ! d5 6 ed �xd5
.Q.h3 ! + or 6 .Q.xd 5 itxd5 7 �c3 7 *b3 0-0 8 .llxd5 �a5 9 .Q.xf7+
itd8 8 d3 .Q.e7 + ) 6 ... de 7 llxe4 §xf7 1 0 *c2 .llf5 1 1 �e2 *d5
lld6 8 d4 ed 9 .Q.xc6+ (9 �xd4 0-0 1 2 �bd2 §af8 1 3 h3 c5 1 4 b3
1 0 �xc6? ith4+ ! but better is 1 0 b5 t Tomasevic-van Oudcn, corrcs
.Q.e3 ith4 1 1 .Q.xc6 be 1 2 h 3 ! ? 1 976) 5 . . . 0-0 6 c3 d6 7 .ll b 3
unclear) 9 . . . be 1 0 l'hd4 ( 1 0 �d7 (7 ... .llc 6! ?) 8 �fl �c5 9 lld5
�xd4 0-0! 1 1 0-0 ith4 1 2 h3 .Q.d7 (9 .Q.c2! ?) 9 ... llf6 1 0 llc3 �e7 1 1
+ ) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0 c5 1 2 ttc3 .llc4 �e6 1 2 �g3 d 5 ! with good
.Q.b7 1 3 b3 *d 7 1 4 .Q.b2 f6 1 5 play for Black, Bronstein-Nei,
§ad 1 *f5 with about equal chances, Tal linn 1 973.
Tartakower-Bogoljubow, Pistyan (c3) 5 0-0 0-0 6 §e1 (on 6 c3
1 922. good is 6 ... d5! = ) 6 ... d6 7 c3
(c) 4 d3 [A move especially popu lar Vasyukov-l vanovic , Zalaegerszeg
with Soviet masters - tr. ] 4 ... .Q.e7 1 977 and now 7 ... �a5 ! ? 8 .Q.b5
(Also good is 4 ... llc5 transposing .lld 7 9 .llx d7 *xd 7 1 0 d 4 e d 1 1
into the I talian Game, but p remature cd d5 1 2 e5 �e4 = Holmov.
is 4 ... d 5 ! ? 5 ed �xd5 6 0-0 and (c4) 5 ..Q.b3 0-0 (also good is 5 ...
Black has problems defend ing h i s d 5 ! ? 6 �bd2 0-0 7 0-0 de 8 de
pawn at e5, for example 6 ... llg4 ..Q.c5 9 c3 *e7 1 0 ..Q.c2 a5 1 1 �h4 g6
7 h3 .Q.h5 8 §e 1 ! ± or 6 ... .1le7 1 2 �b3 .ll b 6 1 3 * f3 .llg4 w ith an
7 §e1 ± ) [ A recent development is easy game for Black, Gaprindashvili­
4 ... h6 5 �c3 d6 6 a3 .lle 7 (Also Ch ibu rdan idze, match , 1 978) 6 0-0

d6 7 c3 aS [ Or 7 ... .Q.e6 8 �bd2
.Q.xb3 9 .Q.xb3 §b8 1 0 §e 1 �d7
1 1 �f1 �cS 1 2 -c»-c2 d S 1 3 �e3 de
1 4 de "t»'xd 3 1 S "t»'xd 3 �xd 3 =
Dolmatov-K iovan, USS R 1 981 . 7
. . . Q.g4 is another reason able try :
8 h 3 .Q.hS 9 �bd2 �d7 1 0 .Q.c2
.Q.g6 1 1 d4 cd 1 2 �xd4 �xd4 1 3
cd Y2-Y2 Djuric -Bronstcin , Tal linn
1 981 . - tr.] 8 §e1 �d7 9 .Q.e3 .Q.f6
1 0 h3 �e7 1 1 d4 �g6 1 2 �bd2
§e8 1 3 .Q.a3 §b8 Makarychev­
=
Faibisovich, USSR 1 978.
4 ed (78)
4 ... �xe4 (4 ... �xd4? S .Q.xf7
*xf7 6 �xeS+ ± ) S de �cS 6 0-0
.Q.e7 7 �c3 0-0 8 �dS :l: .
78
w l'txd4 .Q.d6 9 �f3 �xf3+ 1 0 gf
A S �gS
8 S eS
c s o.o
A Levenfish , Leningrad 1 933.
s �gS (79)
(a) S l'te2? ! .Q.cS 6 eS Q.Q 7 0-0 dS
8 .Q.bS �c4 + Pitch-Maseyev, corres
1 967.
(b) S �xd4? ! �xe4 6 l'thS (6
.Q.xf7+ *xf7 7 l'thS+ g6 8 l'tdS+
*g7 9 �xc6 be 1 0 -c»-xe4 l'te8 !
1 1 l'txe8! .Q.b4+ + ) 6 . . . l'tf6! 7
�xc6 be ! 8 0-0 .Q.e7 9 �d2 �gS
1 0 §e1 0-0 1 1 f4 g6! 1 2 l'th6 ( 1 2
Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4 83
-c»-xgS ? -c»-cS+ + + ) 1 2 ... �e6 1 3 �f3
dS 1 4 .Q.d3 *g7 + Timoshchenko-
Godes, corres 1 96 1 .
79
8
s dS!
The best move in the given
position. We also examine S ... �eS.
(a) 6 .Q.b3 h6 (6 ... dS! 7 ed h6 8
0-0 1 1 .Q.e3 §e8 1 2 �c3 .Q.eS 1 3
l'td2 - Pfleger-Mazzoni , Hague
1 966 - and now 1 3 ... �hS 1 4 0-0-0
with compensation for the pawn -
Keres.) 7 f4 hg 8 fc �xe4 and
further:
(a 1 ) 9 .Q.xf7+ *f7 1 0 "t»'f3+ *g8
1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 -c»-xc4 dS ! + ) 1 1 ... l'te8 !
1 2 "ltxe4 d S ! 1 3 "t»'xd4 .Q.e6 1 4 .Q.gS
b6 + E strin-Koptev, Moscow 1 94 1 .
(a2) 9 0-0 dS 1 0 ed "t»'xd6 1 1
.Q.xf7+ *dB 1 2 g3 d 3 ! + Kan­
(a3) 9 l'txd4 �cS ! (Worse are 9 ...
§ h4 1 0 §fl ! �f6 1 1 l'te3 ! §e4
1 2 .Q.xf7+! wins and 9 ... dS 1 0
.Q.xdS �g3 1 1 l'ta4+ .Q.d7 1 2
.Q.xf7+! *xf7 1 3 "t»'b3 .Q.e6 1 4
"ltxg3 ± ) 1 0 �c3 d6 1 1 ..Q.e3
�xb3 12 ab de 1 3 l'txe5+ l'te7
1 4 l'txg5 -c»-xgS 1 S .Q.xgS .Q.d7 +
Pfleger-Spassky, Hastings 1 96S/66.
(b) 6 l'txd4 �xc4 (worse is 6 ...
84 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4
'f!le7 7 0-0 h6 8 -tlf3 -tlxf3+ 9 gf
d6 1 0 -tlc3 ± Blackburne-Pil lsbury,
Great Britain-USA Cable 1 897)
7 'fllx c4 dS 8 cd and fu rther:
(b 1 ) 8 ... -tlxd S 9 0-0 .ll e 7 1 0 -tlc3
.ll xgS 1 1 -tlxd S ± .
(b2) 8 ... h 6 9 -tle4 -tlxd S 1 0 0-0
-tlb6 1 1 'f!le2 .lle7 1 2 § d 1 lld7
1 3 c4 0-0 1 4 cS -tlc8 1 5 .£1 1 c3 ;t
Pfleger-Zuidema, Hague 1 963.
(b3) 8 ... 'fllx dS 9 'f!le2+ .lle 7 1 0
0-0 .ll d 7 1 1 -tlc3 ( 1 1 §e 1 0-0!
1 2 'flxe7? §ae8 1 3 'flb4 'fileS !
1 4 .lld 2 §xe 1 + + ) 1 1 ... 'fileS 1 2
.ll e 3 'flfS 1 3 .lld 2 ;t E isinger-Wolk
West German Ch 1 95S.
6 ed 'fle7+
If 6 ... -tieS 7 'fle2 ! 'fle7 8 0-0
.llg 4 9 f3 -tlxc4 1 0 'flxc4 llfS 1 1
.llf4 ;t Sokolsky-Konstantinopolsky,
corres 1 95 1 .
7 'flle 2
Alternatives are weaker:
(a) 7 .lle 2 -tlxd5 8 0-0 h6 9 -tlf3
'fld6 + .
(b) 7 e>f1 -tieS 8 'flxd4 -tlxc4
9 'flxc4 'flcS 1 0 'fixeS ( 1 0 'f!le2+
.lle 7 1 1 . c4 -tlxd5 ! 1 2 �a3 -tlb4
1 3 .lle 3 'fll fS + Vaskan-G ipslis,
USS R 1 966) 1 0 ... .llx cS 1 1 �c3
.llf5 1 2 .llf4 0-0 1 3 h3 §ac8 1 4
g4 .llx c2 + Naglis-Kogan, USSR
1 939.
7 �b4
8 'fixe 7+ .ll xe 7 9 d6 �xc2+ 1 0
�d2 .llf 5 1 1 de -tlxa 1 1 2 -tla3
.llg 6 oo Poletayev-Rozinov, corres
1 955.
B 8 1 1 7 ... .lld 7
S e5 (80)
Now the way d ivides :
81 5 ... d5
82 5 ... -tlg4
80
8
83 5 ... -tle4
81
s dS
6 .llb 5 -tle4
Worse is 6 ... -tld 7? ! 7 0-0 .lle 7
(7 ... .llc S? 8 .llg S .lle 7 9 .llx c6 be
1 0 -tlxd4 ! ±) 8 .llx c6 (8 c3 and 8
§e1 are also worth considering)
8 ... be 9 -tlxd4 -tlb8 (9 ... -tlxe5 ?
1 0 .llf4 ± ) 1 0 -tlc3 (also good is 1 0
f4 or 1 0 -tlb3) and further:
(a) 1 0 ... cS 1 1 -tldbS c6 1 2
-tld6+ -tlxd6 1 3 ed 0-0 ( 1 3 ...
'fllx d6? 1 4 §c 1 + .Q.e6 15 -tlc4 !
'fle7 1 6 .llg S 'f!lf8 1 7 c 4 d4 1 8 b4
±) 1 4 .ll f4 .lle 6 15 itd2 -tld7 1 6
§fe 1 -tlb6 1 7 b3 -tlc8 1 8 -tla4 ±
Barczay-Smej kal , Raach 1 969.
(b) 10 ... 0-D 1 1 'flf3 itd7 1 2 h3
§d8 1 3 §e 1 -tla6 1 4 e6 fe 1 5
-tlxe6 §e8 1 6 -tlxg7! § f8 ( 1 6 ...
�xg7 17 'flhS ! ±) 1 7 ithS �g7
1 8 .llg 5 .lld 6 1 9 .Q.h6+ ± M ark
Tseitlin-Yuneyev, Leningrad Ch
1 979 .
7 -tlxd4
81 2 7 ... .llc5
81 1
7 .lld 7
8 .llx c6

After 8 �b3 (8 �xc6 ? 1 be 9
�d 3 �cS ! +) 8 ... "i!l' M 9 0-0 0-0-0
1 0 �xc6 be 1 1 �c3 f6 and Black
has a good game, Tartakower-Reti ,
Baden 1 9 1 4.
8 be
8 ... .Q.xc6 9 0-0 .Q.cS 1 0 f3
(White gets nothing with 1 0 �xc6
be 1 1 itg4 itd 7 ! and if 1 2 itxg7
then 1 2 ... 0-0-0 and Bl ack has an
attack . Radchen ko) 1 0 .. . �gS
1 1 f4 �e6 1 2 c3 .Q.bS 1 3 §f2
�xd4 1 4 cd cS 1 S de �xeS 1 6
�c3 = Voorema-Rozhdestvensky,
USS R 1 96S.
9 0-0 �e7
9 ... ..Q.cS transposes to variation
B 12. 0ther continuations are weaker,
for exam ple:
(a) 9 ... ith4 10 f3 �cS 1 1 f4 g6
12 ..Q.e3 �e6 K nezevic-Chisar, Lenin­
grad (Student OL) 1 960 and now
by continuing 1 3 �d2! with a later
�2f3 or �2b3 White gets the edge.
(b) 9 ... c5 1 0 �b3 c6 1 1 c4 de
1 2 �3d2 �xd 2 1 3 �xd 2 �e6 1 4
ita4 itb6 1 S itc2! ( 1 S �xc4
itbS ) ita6 1 6 �e4 0-0-0 1 7 ..Q.e3
= 1 3 �c3 §e8 1 4 �xg5 itxg5 1 5
± Estrin -Sadomsky, corres 1 962.
1 0 f3
1 0 �b3 aS ! 1 1 a4 0-0 =.
10 �cS
1 1 f4 (8 1)
11 �e4
(a) 1 1 ... �e6 ( 1 1 ... g6? 1 2 fS gf
1 3 ithS ± ) 1 2 fS �xd4 1 3 itxd4
cS ( 1 3 . .. itb8 1 4 e6 fe 1 S itxg7
± ) 1 4 itg4 (worse is 1 4 itxdS ..Q.bS
1 5 § d 1 itxdS 1 6 §xd5 ..Q.d 7) 1 4 ...
<M8 1S �c3 ± Sax-Aitken, Skopje
OL 1 972.
(b) 1 1 ... f5 1 2 b4 �e4 ( 1 2 ... �e6
1 3 �xfS ..Q.xb4 1 4 �g3 followed by
Two Knight's Defence: 4d4 85
87
8
fS ± ) 1 3 e6 ..Q.c8 1 4 �xc6 itd6 1 5
�xe7 'lilxe7 (or 1 S ... itb6+ 1 6
'lilh 1 'lilxe7 1 7 ite 1 ! ± Golovko­
Grechkin, corres 1 962) 1 6 ..Q.e3
..Q.xe6 1 7 itd4 'lilf7 1 8 �c3 ±
Wason-Race, corres 1 966.
(c) 1 1 .. . f6 1 2 f5 0-0 1 3 e6 ..Q.e8
1 4 itg4 ( 1 4 �c3 ! ?) 'lilh8 1 5 �c3
§g8 1 6 §f3 g5! 1 7 fg §xg6 1 8
itf5 �b7 ! 1 9 §h3 �d6 20 itf3 §b8
unclear Brendushe-N ikol ayevsky,
USS R 1 976. The plan adopted by
Black in this game deserves atten-
tion.
(d) 1 1 .. . 0-0 1 2 fS §e8 ( 1 2 ... �g5
ite2 §ab8 1 6 itf2 ! ite7 1 7 §ae1
§xb2 1 8 f6 ! ± Barczay-Mestrovic ,
Sarajevo 1 969) 1 3 ith5 �e4 ( 1 3 ...
�f8 deserves consideration, as White
gets nowhere with 1 4 b4 �e4 1 5
e6 fe 1 6 fe g6 ! 1 7 itf3 ..Q.g7 -
Keres) 1 4 ..Q.f4 ( 1 4 e6? fe 1 5 fe
..Q.f6 ! + Neish tadt-Natanov, USS R
1 963) 1 4 ... itc8 ! ;!: although it is
not easy for White to strengthen the
attack , Azaritis-Ekslyaine, corres
1 968.
1 2 f5
(a) 1 2 �b3 aS 1 3 a4 �c5 1 4 4:ld4
f5 ! Keres, and Black h as a good
86 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4
game, when compared with vari­
ation b ( 1 1 ... f5) , since White
cannot drive the knight on c5 away
with the move b4.
(b) 1 2 �c3 �xc3 1 3 bc c5 1 4 �b3
c6 15 ..Q.e3 c4 1 6 �c5 ;l; Stanciu­
Kovacs, Lublin 1 969. According to
Keres, Black shou ld have p layed
1 2 ... f5! ? instead of 1 2 ... �xc3.
12 ..Q.c5
(a) 1 2 . 0-0 1 3 �c3 �xc3 1 4 be
..
c5 ( 1 4 ... f6 1 5 e6 ..Q.e8 1 6 *g4
*h8 1 7 l:H3 ± Tarmann-Bairamov,
USSR 1 969) 1 5 �b3 c4 1 6 �d4 c5
1 7 �e2 ..Q.c6 1 8 f6 ! gf 1 9 ..Q.h6 fe
20 �d4! ..Q.d7 2 1 �c6 ! *e8 22
�xeS ..Q.e6 23 * f3 ! ± ± Okhotn i k­
Ofren iuk, USS R 1 977.
(b) 12 ... c5 1 3 �b3 ..Q.b5 1 4 1::1 e 1
..Q.h4 ! ? 1 5 g 3 �xg3 1 6 �c3 ..Q.c4
1 7 hg ..Q.xg3 1 8 itg4 ..Q.xe 1 1 9 ..Q.g5
h5 20 *f4 f6 21 ef gf 22 §xe l +
*f7 unclear M uratov-Matsu kevich ,
corres 1 964.
1 3 e6 ! ?
1 3 �c3 ! ? ( 1 3 c3? i s not good :
1 3 ... *e7 1 4 e6 fe 1 5 *h5+ g6 !
1 6 fg 0-0-0! + Geller-Keres, ;l;
Zurich 1 959) 1 3 ... *e7 1 4 �a4
Haag-Karafiat, corres 1 958, and
now 1 4 ... ..Q.b6 unclear Keres.
13 fe
1 4 fe
1 4 *h5+? g6 1 5 fg ..Q.xd4+ 1 6
*h 1 hg 1 7 *xg6+ *e7 1 8 1::1 f7 +
*d6 1 9 ..Q.f4+ *c5 + is bad.
14 ..Q.xe6
1 5 *h5+ *d7 !
1 5 . . . g 6 ? 1 6 *e5 ..Q.xd4 1 7 *xd4
1::1g 8 1 8 �c3 ± .
1 6 ..Q.e3 *e8 !
This i s better than 1 6 ... *e7
1 7 �c3 ! �xc3 1 8 be 1::1 af8 1 9 1::1 fe 1
with a l asting initiative for White,
Neishtadt-Berezin, USSR 1 953.
17 *e2 *g6
1 8 �c3
Another possibility is 1 8 c4 ( 1 8
�f3 ? ..Q.d6 1 9 c4 *h5 20 *c2 g5
gave B l ack an excellent game,
Brash ko-Kosten, corres 1 965) 1 8 ...
..Q.xd4 19 ..Q.xd 4 1::1 h e8 with approx­
imately equal chances.
18 �xc3
1 9 be =
The position rem ains q uite com­
plicated .
B12
7 ..Q.c5 (82)
82
w
8 ..Q.e3
8 �xc6? fails due to 8 ... ..Q.xf2+
9 *f1 *h4 1 0 �d4 c6 1 1 �f3
�g3+ 1 2 �xf2 �e4+ ! 1 3 �e2
*f2+ 1 4 *d3 ..Q.f5 and Black has
a decisive attack.
8 0-0 deserves consideration, e.g . :
( a ) 8 ... ..Q. d 7 ( 8 . . . ..Q.xd4 9 *xd4
0-0 1 0 ..Q.xc6 be 1 1 f3 �g5 1 2
..Q.xg5 *xg5 1 3 �c3 ! ;l; 9 ..Q.xc6
(9 �b3 �e7! 10 ..Q.d 3 Q.b6 +) 9 .. .
be 1 0 f3 ( 1 0 ..Q.e3 see 8 Q.e3) 1 0 .. .
�g5 1 1 f4 ( 1 1 ..Q.e3 see 8 ..Q.e3)
1 1 ... ..Q.g4? ! (Better is 1 1 ... �e4
1 2 ..Q.e3 transposing to the main

line) 1 2 itxg4 llxd4+ 1 3 �h 1 4.le4
1 4 4.ld2 ! ( 1 4 itxg7? ! ith4 1 5 4.lc3
0-0-0 1 6 4.lxe4 de unclear Okhotn i k­
Zaid, USS R 1 978) 1 4 ... 4.lf2+ 1 5
lhf2 Q.xf2 1 6 itxg7 §f8 1 7 4.lf3
itd 7 1 8 itg5 ! ± Sveshni kov­
Barrcras, Cienfuegos 1 979.
(b) 8 ... 0-0 ! ? and further :
(b 1 ) 9 4.lxc6 be 1 0 llxc6 11a6 !
1 1 ..llx a8 ( 1 1 itxd 5 ..llx fl 1 2 itxe4
..lla 6+) 1 1 ... Q.xf1 1 2 Q.e3 ( 1 2
itxd 5 ? ..llc4 ! + + ) 1 2 ... ..llx e3 1 3
fe .Q.xg2 1 4 itg3 ..llh 4 1 5 itxh3
itg5+ 16 �xf1 §xa8 with an
advantage for Black, Herman-Keres,
corres 1 936.
(b2) 9 ..llx c6 be 1 0 ..lle 3 (Not so
good are 1 0 f3 f6! 1 1 fe fe 1 2
lhf8+ itxf8 1 3 ..lle 3 ed 1 4 .Q.xd4
..llg 4! 1 5 l'td2 de + Estrin-Antoshin,
USS R 1 954 or 10 4.lxc6 l'td7 1 1
4.ld4 ..ll a6 1 2 §e1 l'te7 + , and
also 1 0 b4 .Q.b5 1 1 4.lxc6? ! l'th4
1 2 ..lle 3 ..lla6 + Cord en-Nunn,
Birmingham 1 975) 1 0 ... ite8! ?
( 1 0 . . . ..ll d 7 transposes to the main
line.) 1 1 c3 (on 1 1 f3 good is 1 1 ...
4.ld6, and after 1 1 4.lc3 4.lxc3 1 2
be ..ll b 6 1 3 f4 f6 or 1 1 4.ld2 4.lxd 2
1 2 itxd2 \'txe5 1 3 4.lc6 ..llx e3 1 4
fe itxb2 1 5 4.le7+ �h8 1 6 4.lxd 5
..lla 6 Black has a slight advantage.
Poleshuk) 1 1 ... f6 ! 1 2 ef §xf6
1 3 4.ld2 §g6 1 4 �h 1 .Q.g4 1 5 ite1
..ll f6 + Waitsei-Poleshuk , corres
1 978.
8 ..lld 7
(a) 8 ... 0-0 9 4.lxc6 (Worse are
9 ..llx c6 be 1 0 4.lxc6 ..llx e3 ! 1 1
4.lxd8 ..llxf2+ or 1 0 f3 l'th4+ 1 1 g3
4.lxg3 1 2 ..llf2 ith3 1 3 .Q.xg3 itg2
1 2 §f1 ..ll h 3 w ith an advantage for
Black) 9 . . . be 1 0 ..ll x c5 4.lxc5
Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4 87
1 1 ..llx c6 ..lla 6 1 2 4.lc3 ! (but not
1 2 ... \'tg5 1 3 itd4 ± ) Henkin­
Vasiukov, USSR 1 954; or 1 2 ...
§b8 1 3 itxd 5 ± ) 13 ..ll x a8 ! (weaker
is 1 3 4.le4? ! 4.lxe4 1 4 ..llx e4 § ab8
1 5 b3 §e8! N ikovic-Savic, corres
=
1 975) 1 3 ... itxa8 ( 1 3 ... de 1 4
itxd8 §xd8 1 5 b4! ± ) 1 4 \'txd4
§d8 1 5 itg4! ± .
(b) 8 ... ..llx d4 9 itxd4 0-0 1 0
..llx c6 be 1 1 4.lc3 4.lg5 ( 1 1 ... 4.lxc3
1 2 \'txc3 l'td 7 1 3 0-0-0 .Q.a6 1 4 h4
± Espig-Walter, E. Germany 1 973)
1 2 l'ta4 ..lld 7 1 3 0-0-0 4.le6 14 \'ta3
f6 1 5 ef itxf6 1 6 4.le4! ± Estrin­
Brglez, corres 1 976.
9 ..ll x c6 be
1 0 0-0 (83)
Or 1 0 f3 ! \'th4+ ( 1 0 ... 4.lg5 1 1 ..lle 3
..llb 6 1 2 l'td2 h 6 - 1 2· ... 4.le6 1 3
itf2 - 1 3 4.lb3 0-0 1 4 4.lc3 f5 1 5
f4? ! - 1 5 ef! - 1 5 ... 4.le6 1 6 4.la4
\'te7 1 7 \'tc3 - 1 7 itf2 g5 ! - 1 7 ...
c5 ! C/)gaard-Lundi n , Oslo 1 9 7 1 )
1 1 g3 4.lxg3 1 2 ..llf2 ith3 1 3 ..ll x g3
\'tg2 1 4 §fl ..llh 3 1 5 itd3 ..llx d4
1 6 4.ld2! ..ll b 6 ( 1 6 ... ..ll x b2? 1 7 §b1
§b8 1 8 §f2 itg1 + 1 9 �e2 ± ± )
1 7 0-0-0 oo - M azurenko. I thi n k
that Black's position i s preferable.
83
8
 88 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4
(a) 10 ... Ab6 1 1 f3 (on 1 1 4ld2
good is 1 1 ... cS, and if 12 {)xe4,
then 1 2 ... cd 1 3 AgS "l'tc8 - Keres)
1 1 ... 4lgS and further:
(a 1 ) 1 2 "C'td2 h6 ( 1 2 ... 4le6 1 3 "C'tf2
f6 ! ? or 1 3 . . . "C'te7 ! ? Keres) 1 3 4lb3
0-0 ( 1 3 ... "C'te7 ? ! is worse, e.g. 1 4
{)c3 f6 1 S f4 {)f7 1 6 Axb6 cb 1 7
e6! ± M azu ren ko-Domograi, corres
1 964) 1 4 4lc3 fS ! with a good game
for Black, !l>gaard - Lundin, Oslo
1 97 1 .
(a2) 1 2 f4 4le4 ( 1 2 ... 4le6 1 3 c3 !
Estrin) 1 3 4lc3 ( 1 3 4ld 2 cS 1 4 4le2
4lxd2 1 S "C'txd2 d4 1 6 .Q.f2 0-0 1 7
a4 a6 Vorobets-Bannik, USS R
1 9S6) 1 3 ... {)xc3 1 4 be 0-0 1 S
"C'td2 cS 1 6 {)f3 AfS 1 7 a4 a6 1 8
aS Aa7 w ith an approxi mately equal
game. Holmov-Kuk sov, USS R 1 979.
(b) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 f3 4lgS and further :
(b1 ) 1 2 l'td2 f6 1 3 �h 1 ( 1 3 c3?
fe ! 1 4 AxgS ed +) 1 3 ... h6 !
( 1 3 . .. .llb 6 1 4 c4! ? cS 1 S 4le2 d4
16 Af4 4lf7 ! 1 7 ef "C'txf6 unclear
N esteren ko-Kulvanevsky, corres
1 966) 1 4 "C'tc3 (After 1 4 b4 Ab6
1 S ef "C'txf6 1 6 {)c3 §fe8 Timo­
shchenko-Butnorius, USS R 1 969
or 1 4 4lb3 Axe3 1 S l'txe3 "C'te7
Sapundzhiev-Chinev, Bulgaria 1 968,
Black's chances are slightly better.)
1 4 ... Ab6 1 S 4lxc6 (the variant
1 S AxgS hg 1 6 4lxc6 "C'te8 ! 1 7 �b4
d4 1 8 "C'tc4+ Ae6 1 9 "C'te2 fe
20 "C'txeS Ac4 favours Black.) 1 S ...
.Q.xc6 16 Axb6 .Q.bS 1 7 .llx c7 "C'td7
1 8 §fd 1 §ac8 19 "C'tb3 Q.a4 ! 20
�xdS l't f7 21 l'txa4 "l'txdS +
Regan-Rodriguez, Mexico 1 977.
(b2) 1 2 f4 �e4 1 3 �d2 f6 ! (Weaker
are 1 3 ... fS 1 4 �xe4 de 1 S l'te2 ;t
or 1 3 ... �xd2 1 4 l'txd 2 f6 1 S Q.bS
;!;) 14 {)xe4 de 1 S "C'te2 .Q.g4! 16
"C'te2 "C'te8 ( 1 6 ... "C'tdS ? 1 7 4lxc6 ! ±)
1 7 4lb3 llb6 1 8 c4 llxe3 1 9 "C'txe3
"C'tg6 20 §ae 1 fe 21 "C'txe4 e f =
Bredewout-Karaklaic , Beverwijk
1 967.
11 §e 1 !
Black has a good game after 1 1
f3 4ld6! ( 1 1 ... 4lgS 1 2 f4 {le4 1 3
4ld2 0-0 1 4 4lxe4 d e 1 S "C'te2 .Q.b6
1 8 c4 cS 19 "C'tf2 ;t Sveshni kov­
Semeni u k , Victory Anniversary,
Moscow 1 97S; stronger is 1 2 "C'td2!
± ) for example:
(a) 12 f4 ? {)c4 1 3 .llc 1 f6 14
§e1 fe 1 S fe {)xeS 16 c3 0-0 +
Kaganovsky-Neishtadt, USS R 1 9S9.
(b) 1 2 §el ? ! 4lc4 1 3 llc 1 0-0 1 4
�h 1 tth4 1 S c 3 §ae8 + Camilleri­
Toth, Portugal 1 978 .
(c) 1 2 Af2 �fS 1 3 c3 (after 1 3 4lc3
0-0 1 4 §e1 4lxd4 1 S llxd4 §ab8
1 6 �h 1 §b4 1 7 Q.xcS l'txcS 1 8 a3
§d4 Black stands better. Holmov­
E strin , USS R 1 968) 1 3 ... 0-0 1 4
§e 1 f6? ( 1 4 . . . · Q.b 6 ! ) 1 S e6 ! .Q.xd4
1 6 cd Axe6 1 7 4ld2! l'tf7 1 8 {)b3
§fb8 1 9 §e2 .Q.d7 20 l'td2 4ld6
21 l'taS ! and White has more than
sufficient compensation for the
pawn. Radovici-Stanciu, Romania
1 976.
11 0-0
1 2 f3 {)gS (84}
1 3 f4
We also examine other contin­
uations:
(a) 13 l'td2 f6 (Also possible is
1 3 ... {)e6 14 4lc3 §fb8 1 S §ab 1
§b4 1 6 4lxe6 .Q.xe6 1 7 a3 §c4
1 8 AxeS l'txcS+ 1 9 �h1 aS oo
Namyslo-Munster, corres 1 980.)
1 4 4lc3 ( 1 4 �h1 h 6 ! 1 S .Q.xgS hg

1 6 {)b3 Ab6 1 7 ef itxf6 1 8 c4
de 1 9 itxd7 cb + Schneider­
Yudovi c , corres 1 972) 1 4 ... Q.b6
1 5 §ad 1 {)e6 16 ef itxf6 1 7
{)xe6 Q.xe6 1 8 {)a4 itg6 1 9 Q.d4
Af5 20 {)c5 § ae8 = Sokolsky­
Shapovalov, corres 1 964.
{b) 1 3 {)d2 Q.b6! {Worse is 1 3 ...
f6 1 4 {)2b3 .Q.b6 1 5 itd2 h6
16 e6! ± Akopian-Katalymov,
USSR 1 977) 14 a4 a5 { 1 4 ... {)c6 !
Averbakh) 1 5 {)e2 c4 1 6 .Q.xb6 ab
with approximately equal play,
Lju bojcvic -Averbakh, Palma de
Mallorca 1 972.
13 {)e6
1 4 c3 .Q.b6
14 ... f6? is worse, e.g. 1 5 . f5
{)xd4 1 6 cd Ab4 1 7 e6! .Q.xe 1
1 8 itxe 1 , and White's positional
advantage is ful ly worth the sacri­
fice of the exchange, Sax-Smej kal,
Vrsac 1 977.
1 5 {)d2 f6 +
One may conclude that the
variation under examination {7 ...
.Q.c5) is more favourable to Black.
82
5 {)g4 (85}
A fu lly playable continuation ,
lead ing to an interesting game.
Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4 89
85
w
8 2 1 6 0-0
822 6 ite2
6 Axf7+? doesn 't work : *xf7
7 {)g5+ *g8 8 itxg4 {8 itf3 .Q.b4+!
9 c3 {)gxe 5 ! 1 0 itd5 *f8 1 1 cb
{)xb4 +) 8 . . . h6 9 {)f3 d6 + .
821
6 0-0 d6
{6 ... .Q.c5 see the M ax Lange
attack.)
Deserving of attention is 6 ...
d5 ! ? 7 .Q.b5 {7 ed leads to the main
line.) 7 ... .Q.d 7 {7 ... a6? 8 .Q.xc6+
be 9 h'3 ± Haag-M arshalek, Reyk­
javik 1 957) 8 .Q.xc6 be 9 itxd 4
{ 9 h 3 h 5 ! ) 9 ... § b 8 ! 1 0 h 3 { 1 0
c3 ! ?) 1 0 ... §b4 1 1 itxa7 h 5 !
1 2 hg hg 1 3 .Q.g5 f6 1 4 e f g f 1 5
§e1 + *f7 1 6 {)e5+ *f7 1 7 {)xd7
itxd7 1 8 .Q.d 2 §c4 1 9 ite3 itf5 20
ite6 ith5 21 itd7+ *g8 22 ite6+
*g7 Yz-Yz Yudasin-Cherepkov,
Leningrad Ch 1 980.
7 e6
{a) 7 .Q. gS .Q.e7 8 .Q.xe7 itxe7
9 ed itxd6 1 0 §e1 + .Q.e6 1 1 h3
{)f6 1 2 {)g5 {)d8 1 3 c3 { 1 3 {)a3
0-0 1 4 {)xe6 {)xe6 1 5 .Q.xe6 fe
1 6 {)b5 itb6 ! + Duimakayev­
Berezi n , USS R 1 958) 1 3 ... 0-0
1 4 {)xe6 {)xe6 1 5 .Q.xe6 fe 1 6
90 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4

l'txd4 l'txd4 1 7 cd §ad8 + N ieman­ USS R 1 96 1 .

Altshuler, corres 1 968. 9 ..Q.xc6
(b) 7 ed and further : 1 0 ..Q.xe6 l'tf6
(b 1 ) 7 . . . l'txd6 8 {la3 (8 h3 {lf6 11 ..Q.dS {lb4
9 {lgS {ld8 1 0 § c 1 + ..Q.e7 1 1 l'te2 On 1 1 ... 0-0-0 1 2 f4 followed
..Q.fS 1 2 ..Q.f4 l'td7 1 3 {lc3 ! h6 1 4 by l'tf3 ±
{lf3 {le6 1 S ..Q.xe6 ..Q.xe6 1 6 {leS 1 2 .Q.xb 7 §b8
l'tc8 1 7 {lbS w ith an active position 1 3 f4 §xb7
for the sacrificed pawn - Estri n) 1 4 fe l'tg6
8 ... a6 9 h3 {lf6 1 0 {lgS {ld8 1 S e6 ! l'te4!
1 1 §e1 + ..Q.e7 1 2 l'te2 {le6 1 3 f4 I n this sharp position chances are
with an i n itiative for White. Sax­ equal . Nordstrem-Lind, cor res 1 973.
Gorchakov, G roningen 1 972. The fight continued in an inter­
(b2) 7 ... ..Q.xd 6 ! ? 8 §e1 + <lo'f8 esting manner: 1 6 {ld2 l'tdS 1 7
9 {la3 ! ? (9 c3 {leeS + ) l't f6 ! ( Here l'tg4 {lxc2 1 8 e 7 ! ..Q.xe7 1 9 l'tc8+
9 . .. {lee S ? ! turns in White's favour .Q.d8 20 {le4 h6 2 1 llxh6 {lxa 1
after 10 h 3 ! : 1 0 ... ..Q.xa3? 1 1 22 {lg5 ( I f 22 ..Q.g7 then 22 . . . l'txe4
§xeS ! {lxe5 1 2 {lxe5 l'te7 1 3 23 Q.f6 0-0! winning, and in the
{lxf7 ± Ljubojevic -Sanguinetti, event of 22 .Q.g5 B l ack defends
N ice OL 1 974 or 1 0 ... {lxc4 1 1 with 22 ... §b8 ! 23 l'txb8 'li'd7 + )
{lxc4 {lf6 1 2 {lxd4 ..Q.c5 1 3 ..Q.e3 22 . . . g h 23 §e1 + l'te5 2 4 §xeS+
± .) 1 0 l'te2 ( 1 0 {lb5? ..Q.xh2+! de 25 l'te6+ V2 -Y2.
1 1 {lxh2 l'txf2+ 1 2 'li'h 1 *h4 + + ) Thus the move 6 0-0 does not
1 0 ... ..Q.d7 1 1 ..Q.g5 l'tg6 1 2 {lb5 promise White an advan tage.
{lxh2! 1 3 {lxd6 {lxf3+ 1 4 l'txf3 822
cd 1 5 ..Q.f4 h5 ! + Matsievsky­ 6 l'te2 (86)
Sydor, Poland 1 976. 6 ..Q.f4 d6! 7 ed .Q.xd6 + .
7 fe
Deserving of attention is 7 ... 86
8
..Q.xe 6 ! ? 8 ..Q.xe6 fe 9 {lg5 {lf6 1 0
{lxe6 l'td 7 1 1 §el 'li'f7 1 2 {lxd4
..Q.e7 1 3 {lc3 §he8 = Akopian­
Novopashi n , Barevestn i k Ch 1 976.
8 {lg5 {lge5
8 ... dS 9 l'txg4 de 1 0 {lxe6
..Q.xe6 1 1 l'txe6+ ..Q.e7 1 2 §e1 l'td7
1 3 l'txc4 0-0-0=.

9 {lxe6
Worse is 9 ..Q.xe 6 ? ! because of
9 ... h6! 1 0 ..Q.xc8 ( 1 0 l'th5+ g6 1 1
l'th3 hg 1 2 l'txh8 .Q.xe6 +) 1 0 ...
§xc8 1 1 l'th5+ g6 1 2 l'th3 l'td7
1 3 {le6 {ld8 + Borisov-Kuznetsov,
6 l'te7
6 ... .Q.b4+ is worse, e.g. 7 c3
de 8 0-0! 0-0 9 a3 cb 1 0 .Q.xb2
.Q.c5 1 1 h3 {lh6 1 2 {lc3 d6 1 3
 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4 91

l'hd 1 with a strong attack for d6 B l ack equalizes, Gl igoric ) 8 c3

White , Anzorgc-Kiing, corrcs 1 980. (8 {)bd2 Q.e7 9 {)b3 0-0 10 §e1
7 Q.f4 f6 {)b4 = Witkowski-Gel ler, Dresden
Or 7 ... d6 8 ed 'ltxe2+ 9 Q.xe2 1 959) 8 ... de 9 {)xc3 Q.e7 1 0
.Q.xd6 1 0 .Q.xd6 cd 1 1 {)a3 ! .Q.e6 'lta4 0-0 1 1 §e1 d6! j anosevic ­
=

1 2 {)b5 0-0-0 1 3 {)fxd4 §he8 G i igoric , Belgrade 1 960.

14 0-0 {)f6 1 5 §ad 1 :l: H romada­ (b) 6 0-0 {)c5 ! ? (6 ... .Q.c7 7c3 ! ? d5
Adams, corres 1 977. 8 .Q.b3 {)c5 9 cd {)xb3 1 0 'ltxb3
8 ef {)xf6 §b8 1 1 {)c3 .Q.e6 1 2 .Q.e3 :l:
8 ... 'ltxe2+ 9 c;txe2 {)f6 1 0 Kupreich i k-Belyavsky, USSR Ch
{)bd 2 d6 1 1 §he1 Q.d7 1 2 c;tf1 + 1 981 ) 7 {)xd4 {)xd4 8 'ltxd4
.Q.e 7 1 3 {)b3 :l: Georgadze­ d6 9 .Q.f4 d5 ! ? 1 0 'ltxd5 (Worthy
Katalymov, USS R 1 975. of consideration is 1 0 .Q.xd5 ! ?
9 {)bd2 :l:.) 1 0 ... 'ltxd5 1 1 .Q.xd5 .Q.f5 1 2
I f 9 Q.xc7? d6! +. b4 c6! 1 3 be cd 1 4 .Q.c3 0-0-0
9 d6 1 5 §dfl .Q.xc5 Kuzmin-Romani­
=

1 0 {)b3 Q.g4 sh in, USSR 1 979.

1 1 'ltxe7+ .Q.xe7 6 {)c5
1 2 {)bxd4 {)xd4 7 0-0 .Q.e7
1 3 {)xd4 :l: Deserving attention is 7 ... {)e6 ! ?
Notwithstand ing the simplifica­ 8 c 3 d 5 9 e d .Q.xd6 1 0 cd 0-0 1 1
tion, White retains a minimal edge. .Q.e3 *f6 with good p l ay for Black,
83 Minaya-Zwaig, Skopje O L 1 972.
5 {)e4 (87} 8 §d1 0-0
Accord ing to Keres and G l igoric , 8 ... {)e6 9 Q.xe6 (Better is 9 c3 !
this rarely used continuation is :l:) 9 ... de 1 0 Q.e3 0-0 1 1 {)xd4
fu lly acceptable . 'ltd5 1 2 f4 .Q.c5 1 3 {)c3 {)xd4 =

Haag-Lengyel, Hungary 1 964.

87 • •_._••• • 9 {)xd4 d5
W · i · i · i [l i 1 0 {)b5 !
-� · . . After 1 0 ed e.p . .Q.xd6 Black h as
an active position .
. .�u
� � ­ - 10 Q.e6
-....
.. � ,.
��- � . 1 1 .Q.xd5 ! .Q.xd5
. . ·� ·
�

1 2 {) 1 c3 a6
ft & ft • ll ft B 1 3 §xd5
1 4 {)d6! ;l;
'ltc8

�§�U'it� . § Sax-Giigori c , Ljubljana-Portoroz

6 'lte2 1 977.
(a) 6 .Q.d5 {)c5 7 0-0 {)e6 (with 7 ... c
.Q.e7 8 *e2 0-0 9 §d 1 {)e6 10 c3 5 0-0 (88)
Sax-G iigori c , Teeside 1 972 and now C 1 5 ... .Q.c5
by continuing 1 0 ... de! 1 1 {)xc3 C2 5 ... {)xe4
 92 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4
88
8
5 ... d6 4.lxd4 �e7 7 4.lc3 tranposes
to Hungarian Defence.
Cl
5 �c5
6 e5
This m ove initiates the variation
analyzed as far back as 1 854 by
the German master Max Lange, and
is k nown as the Max Lange Attack.
The M ax Lange attack is one of
the m ost complicated variations in
chess theory, and h as been stud ied
by S taunton, Steinitz, Chigorin ,
Rubinstein and other d istinguished
analysts and competitors of the
past. N evertheless, even now it is
difficu lt to give a final evaluation of
the numerous and many-branched
analyses.
The Attack is adopted very
rarely in contemporary tournament
praxis, as Black has the comfortable
option of playing 5 ... 4.lxe4! ,
obtaining a good game.
Cl l 6 ... d5
C1 2 6 ... 4.lg4
Cl l
6 d5
7 ef
7 �b5 4.le4 8 4.lxd4 see B 1 2.
7 de
8 §e 1 +
I nsufficient i s 8 fg §g8 9 �g5
�e7! 1 0 .Q.xe7 'llx e7 ( 1 0 ... 'fJ/xe7
1 1 4.lxd4 ;!; ) 1 1 §e 1 + .Q.e6 1 2 §e4
( 1 2 4-lbd 2 §xg7 1 3 4.lxc4 <llf8 + )
1 2 ... d 3 ! 1 3 4.lc3 §xg7 1 4 cd
itxd 3 with an excellen t game for
B l ack.
8 .Q.e6
8 ... 'llf8 allows 9 Q.g5 gf (9 . . .
itd7? 1 0 �h6 ! gh 1 1 itd2 wins)
1 0 .Q.h6+ 'ltg8 1 1 4.lc3 .Q. f8 ( 1 1 ...
.Q.g4 1 2 4.le4 .Q. f8 1 3 .Q.xf8 *xf8
1 4 itd4 *g7 1 5 itf4 ± ) 1 2 .Q.xf8
*xf8 1 3 4.le4 followed by itd2 ± .
9 4.lg5
9 fg §g8 1 0 .Q.g5 .Q.e 7 1 1 �xe 7
itxe7 1 2 4.lxd4 0-0-0 1 3 c3 §xg7
with good p l ay for Black, Bernstein­
Wade, Amsterdam 1 96 1 .
9 itd5
Or:
(a) 9 ... 0-0? (9 . . . itxf6 ? 1 0 4.lxe6
fe 1 1 ith5+ wins) 1 0 §xe6! fe 1 1
f7+ *h8 1 2 ith5 wins.
(b) 9 ... g6? 1 0 itf3 ! 0-0 1 1 lhe6
fe 1 2 f7+ *h8 1 3 4.lxe6 ite7 1 4
.Q.g5 ± .
1 0 4.lc3 itf5
1 1 4.lce4 (89)
1 1 g4 is weaker, viz . itg6 ! 1 2
4.lce4 ( 1 2 fg §g8 1 3 4.lce4 .Q.e 7
1 4 f4 h6! 1 5 f5 itg7 1 6 fe hg + )
1 2 ... .Q. b 6 1 3 f4 0-0-0! 1 4 f5
.Q.xf5 1 5 gf itxf5 and despite being
down a piece, B l ack has the advan­
tage, Blackburne-Teich man n , Nur­
embu rg 1 896.
11 0-0-0
The logical continuation. Black
removes his king from the centre
and connects h is rooks, not wasting
time on a defensive m ove.

We consider the alternatives:
(a) 1 1 ... .Q.b6 ( 1 1 ... gf? is bad
because of 1 2 g4 ;te5 1 3 �f3 ± ± )
1 2 fg §g8 1 3 g4 ;tg6 1 4 �xe6 fe
1 5 .Q.g5 ! !!xg7 ( 1 5 ... h6? 1 6 ;t f3 !
hg 1 7 �f6+ 'l/f7 1 8 §xe6 ! ll;xe6
1 9 §e1 + �e5 20 ;td 5+ wins)
1 6 ;tf3 §f7 ( 1 6 ... ll;d7 1 7 �f6+
ll;c8 1 8 §xe6! ;tg5 1 9 h4! wins or
16 ... e5 1 7 �f6+ ll;f7 1 8 h4 h6
19 �c4+ ll;e6 20 h5 ;tf7 21 Q.f6
± ± Chigorin-Teichman n , London
1 899) 1 7 �xf6+ §xf6 1 8 ;txf6 ± .
(b) 1 1 ... .Q.f8 ( Rubinstein) 1 2
�x f7 ( 1 2 g4? ! 'ttxg4 1 3 ;txg4 .Q.xg4
1 4 fg .Q.xg7 1 5 �f6+ ll;f8 1 6 �xg4
h5 + or 1 6 �gxh 7+ !!xh7 1 7
�xh7+ ll;g8 1 8 �g5 �b4 + ) 1 2 ...
ll;xf7 13 �g5+ and further:
( b 1 ) 13 ... ll;g6 1 4 fg (On 14 �xe6
Black gets a fine game with 1 4 ...
§e8! ? - Keres) 14 ... �xg7 1 5
§xe6+ �f6 1 6 g4 ;td5 1 7 �h3
( 1 7 f4 ll;g7 1 8 f5 !!ae8 ! + - Keres)
1 7 ... ll;f7 1 8 �f4 ;tc5 1 9 ;tf3
§h f8 20 ;te4 (20 §xf6+ ? ! ll;xf6
21 �d3+ *g7 22 .Q.h6+ ll;h8
23 .Q.xf8 ;txf8 24 ;txf8+ §xf8 + )
20 ... ll;g8 2 1 �h5 �e5 ! 2 2 f4
unclear.
(b2) 1 3 ... <&>g8 1 4 g4 ( 1 4 �xe6 is
Two Knight 5 Defence: 4d4 93
worse due to 1 4 ... !!e8! + .) ;tg6
(weak are 1 4 ... ;txf6? 1 5 §xe6
;td8 1 6 ;tf3 ;td7 1 7 §e7 ! ! win·
ning, Samisch-Reiman n , Bremen
1 927 and 1 4 ... ;td 5? 1 5 §xe6 gf
16 §xf6 .Q.g7 1 7 § f5 ;td7 1 8 ;te2
d3 1 9 ;te4 ! ± ± - Keres.) 1 5 !! xe6
( 1 5 fg? .Q.d5 ! 1 6 gh=;t+ ll;xh8
1 7 �h3 Q.d6 with good counterplay
for Black.) 1 5 ... fg 1 6 ;tf3 ( 1 6 f4
�d8 1 7 ;te2 d3 1 8 cd cd 1 9 ;te3
.Q.c5 + Keres) 1 6 ... ll;g7 1 7 Q.f4
(if 1 7 �e4, then 1 7 ... �e5 1 8
;txf6+ ;txf6 1 9 �xf6 .Q.d6 with
equal chances - Keres) 1 7 ... .Q.d6
1 8 h4 h5 1 9 .Q.xd6 hg 00 •
1 2 g4
White gets nowhere with 1 2 fg
§g8 1 3 �xe S ? ! ;txc5 1 4 l he6 fe
1 5 �xe6 ;tdS 1 6 �xd8 .Q.xg7 +
Boskovic -Sokolov, Yugosl avia 1 957.
1 2 ... ;te5
Weak is 1 2 ... ;td 5? 1 3 fg §hg8
14 �f6 ;td6 1 5 �ge4 ;te5 1 6
f4 d 3+ 1 7 ll;g2 ;td4 1 8 c3 ± ±
Chigorin-Aibin, Berl i n 1 987.
1 3 �xe6
Or:
(a) 1 3 f4 d 3+ 1 4 11;g2 ;td5 1 5 fg
ll;hg8 1 6 f5 �xf5 ! 1 7 gf §xg7
1 8 f6 §g6 19 ll;h 1 §dg8 20 �f3
�e5 ! + Rosso limo-Medina, Malaga
1 968.
(b) 1 3 �f3 ;td5 1 4 fg .Q.xg4! 1 5
gh=lt §xh8 1 6 h3 ( 1 6 �f6 ;txf3
1 7 �xg4 ;txd 1 1 8 §xd 1 l:lg8 1 9
h 3 h 5 + ) 1 6 ... .Q.h5 1 7 �f6 ;txf3
1 8 �xh5 ;txh3 1 9 �g3 h5 20
;t f3 l:lg8 2 1 ;txf7 §xg3+ =.
13 fe (90)
1 4 fg
'1 4 .Q.g5 ! ? deserves consideration,
for example:
 94 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4
(a) 1 4 ... Ab4 l S f4! (weaker is
lS fg 'flxg7 16 Axd 8 lhd8! with a
good game for Black. Keres) and
further:
•
(al ) 1 S ... *aS ( I f l S ... 'fldS, then
1 6 fg and 1 7 <tlf6 ±) 1 6 fg �hg8
1 7 Q.xd8 <tlxd8 1 8 'flxd4! 'flb6
( 1 8 ... bel 1 9 �dl ! Ah4 20
'fld7+ �b8 21 �2! followed by
gS ± ± or 1 9 ... 'fldS 20 'flxdS ed
21 <tlf6 �xg7 22 �xel ± Keres)
1 9 'flxb6 ab 20 c3 ± ± Murey­
Azaritis, corres 1 966.
(a2) 1 S ... 'fibS 1 6 fg �hg8 1 8
Axd8 Axe 1 1 8 A f6 �b4 1 9 <tlgS
'fldS 20 'fle2 ± Cafferty-May,
corres 1 967.
(b) 1 4 ... h6 lS <tlxcS ! 'fixeS
(if 1 6 ... 'flxgS, then 1 6 fg and 1 7
<tlf6+) 1 6 fg hg 1 7 gh='fl �xh8
18 � xe6 Cafferty-Som bor, Bognar
Regis 1 96S.
(c) 1 4 ... g6 l S f7 ( l S <tlxcS
'fixeS 1 6 Ah6 'fldS ! 1 7 f7 <tieS ! + )
Keene-Divinsky, Havana O L 1 966)
l S ... Ae7 ( l S ... �d7? 1 6 �f6
± ± ) 1 6 f4 'flg7 1 7 �xe7 <tlxe7
1 8 <tlgS d3! 19 <tlxe6 'flxf7 20
<tlxd8 �xd8 with sufficient compen­
sation for the sacrificed exchange -
Keres.
(d) 14 ... �d7 l S fg �g8 16 �f6
'fldS 1 7 -tlxcS 'flxcS 1 8 �xe6 ( 1 8
'fle2! ? with the idea 1 9 'fle4 deserves
attention, Demarre-Boelen, Dresden
1 969) 1 8 ... <tld8 1 9 �e4 d3 20
cd cd 2 1 �cl 'flb6 22 gS d2 23
�c2 'flaS unclear, Faas-Pukshansky,
Y:zF Leningrad Ch 1 97S/6.
14 �hg8
l S Q.h6 d3!
Best. I f l S ... �b4? ! 1 6 f4 l'tdS
(or 1 6 ... l'tbS 1 7 <tlf6 ± ) 1 7 �f6
'flieS 1 8 �g2 ! <tle7 ( 1 8 ... �xel
19 'flxel l'td6 20 <tlxg8 �xg8 21
'fle4 ±) 19 �xe6 ± von Holzhauzen­
Weisberger, Saarbri.icken 1 931 .
1 6 c3 (9 7)
16 d2 ! ?
1 6 ... �e7 1 7 f4 ( 1 7 l'tf3 'fldS
1 8 'flf7 �h4 19 �ad 1 <tieS 20 l'tf4
<tlg6 21 'flf7 <tieS = Feylich-Seibold,
corres 1 933) 17 ... 'fldS 1 8 l'td2
( 1 8 <tlg3? d 2 ! 1 9 �e4 �f6 + Geer­
Seibold, corres 1 928) 1 8 ... �d7
19 �e3 <tld8 20 b3! <tlf7 21 be
*aS 22 �h3 <tlxh6 23 'flxg7
M arkelov-Ostroverkhov, corres 1 9S2
and now 24 h3! t .
1 7 �e2
1 7 <tlxd2? �xf2+ wins.
17 �d 3

1 8 �xeS
On 1 8 itfl Black should respond
1 8 ... itdS ! with a sample variation
being 1 9 §d 1 �eS 20 �f6 itf3
21 �xg8 itxg4+ 22 'ith 1 itf3+ =.
18 itxcS
1 9 §xd2 �eS
20 §xd3 cd
21 'itg2 itdS+
22 'itg3 �f7
23 itd2 00
Radulov-Sokolov, Yugoslavia 1 96 1 .
Now Black could continue accord­
ing to Euwe's advice : 23 ... itd6+
24 'itg2 eS 2S gS �d8! to be
followed by ... �e6.
B1 2
6 �g4 (92)
92
w 1 2 e f itxf6 1 3 itxf6 g f 1 4 Q.b3
This, recom mended by Steinitz,
is the only acceptable way to avoid
the sharp variations of the Max
Lange attack .
6 ... �e4? fails to 7 Q.dS ± .
7 M4
The best reply. We consider
other possi bil ities:
(a) 7 h 3 ? ! �gxeS 8 �xeS �xeS
9 §e1 d6 1 0 f4 d 3+ 1 1 'ith2
(Or 1 1 _g_e3 �xc4 1 2 llxcS+ _g_e6
1 3 fS 0-0 +) 1 1 ... ith4 1 2 fe (if
1 2 _g_xd3, then 1 2 ... _g_f2 with the
Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4 95
threat of �xh3) 1 2 ... de 1 3 ed+
_g_e6 14 §xe6+ fe 1 S d7+ 'ite7
16 itxc2 �d6+ winning - Stein itz .
(b) 7 .Q.xf7+? ! 'itxf7 8 �gS+ 'itg8
9 itxg4 dS 1 0 ed itf6 1 1 §e1
�d8 1 2 �f4 hg + Grave-Perfi l iev,
corres 1 948.
(c) 7 ite1 dS! 8 ed+ e .p. *f8 9 de
itxc7 10 ite4 �f6 + Olson-Re ti,
Stockholm 1 9 1 9)
(d) 7 .Q.g5 _g_e7 ! 8 �f4 f6 9 ef �xf6
1 0 �xd4 �xd4 1 1 itxd4 d S =
Grunfeld.
(e) 7 ite2 ite7 +.
(f) 7 §e1 d3! 8 .Q.xf7+ 'itf8 9 itd3
.Q.xf2+ 1 0 'itf1 �XC 1 1 1 itfS ( 1 1
Q.gS �xh2+ ! 1 2 'ite2 �xf3 1 3
.Q.xd8 �fxe5 1 4 ite3 �xf7 1 5
_g_xc7 �h4 1 6 �c3 b6 + Salygo­
Perfil iev, corres 1 960) 1 1 ... �f6 !
,g,as + Lazarev-Perfil iev, corres
1 95 2.
(g) 7 c3 d 5 ! (7 ... de?! 8 bf7
'itxf7 9 itd5+ 'itf8 1 0 it xeS+ ± )
8 .Q.b5 (8 ed itxd6 9 §e1 + �e6
1 0 .Q.xe6 fe 1 1 b4 .Q.b6 1 2 itb3
0-0-0 1 3 §xe6 itd7 1 4 h3 h5 ! +
Estrin-Smyslov, USS R 1 946) 8 ...
de 9 ita4 (9 �xc3 0-0! 1 0 itxd 5
itxd 5 1 1 �xd5 �gxe5 = Euwe)
9 ... 0-0 (9 ... .Q.d 7? 1 0 e6! ± ± )
1 0 .ll x c6 b e 1 1 itxc6 cb 1 2 .ll x b2
§b8 1 3 itxc5 §xb2 14 itxa7 f6
1 5 itd4 Honfi-Sebestyen, Budapest
Ch 1 961 and now 1 5 ... §b8 ! =.
7 0-0
7 ... d6 i s a possible continuation .
After 8 ed _g_xd6 (if 8 ... cd, then
9 §e 1 + �ge5 10 _g_xe 5 ! de 1 1
�xeS ± - Keres) 9 §e 1 + *f8
(weaker are 9 ... �e7 1 0 _g_xd6
itxd6 1 1 itxd4 ± or 9 ... _g_e7 1 0
96 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4
.Q.b5 0-D 1 1 .Q.xc6 be 1 2 {)xd4 ± .)
1 0 .Q.xd6+ l�hd6 1 1 c3 ! and White
has the better chances, e.g . :
(a) 1 1 . . . .Q.f5 1 2 c d §d8 1 3
.Q.b5 ! g6 1 4 �xc6 i!hc6 1 5 {)c3
{)f6 1 6 §c 1 with an advantage for
White , Rossolimo-O 'Kelly, Trenci­
anske Teplice 1 949.
(b) 1 1 ... dc 1 2 {)xc3 ± .
(c) 1 1 ... itc5 and further :
(c 1 ) 1 2 �bd2 d 3 ( 1 2 ... de? 1 3
{)xe4 and bad is 1 3 ... itxc4?
because of 1 4 �d6 ! winning) 1 3
�d4 �xd4 1 4 cd itxd4 1 5 it f3
itf6 1 6 itd5 (Erroneous is 1 6
itxd3 ? itxf2+ 1 7 �h 1 itxe 1 +!
winning, but 1 6 *g3 ! is worthy of
attention, :t according to G ligori c . )
1 6 . . . Q.e6 1 7 itxb 7 itxf2+ 1 8 � h 1
Y.,-Y., Kretinin-Voronov, corres
1 974; after 1 9 itxa8+ �e7 20 itf3
�xf2+ 2 1 �g1 �h3+ Black forces
a draw by perpetual check .
(c2) 1 2 ite2 ! �f5 1 3 cd itd6 1 4
itd2 ! h 5 1 5 �c3 a6 1 6 Q.d5 g6
1 7 �e4 �d7 1 8 b4 ! ± Butenshon­
Schwanfelder, corres 1 978.
8 h3 �f6
9 �xh6
Wh ite gets nothing from 9 Q.g5
�e7 1 0 �xh6 gh 1 1 Q.d5 �h8! 1 2
�xc6 d e 1 3 itxd4 itxd4 1 4 �xd4
f6 1 5 ef Q.xf6 Y.,-Y.,, Bernstein­
Fine, Paris-New York 1 949.
9 gh
1 0 c3 ! d5
Bad i s 1 0 ... d e ? 1 1 �xc3 d 6
1 2 �e4 ! ± .
1 1 .Q.b 3
1 1 ed? itxd6 + .
11 .Q.f5 !
Worse l l . . . de? 1 2 �xc3 d4 1 3
�d5 ! .Q.f5 (or 1 3 . . . �e7 1 4 itd3 !
with the threat of �c2) 1 4 itc1
�e7 1 5 itxh 6 ±.
12 cd �b6 =
Than k s to the bishop pair and
the weakness o f the White pawn at
d4, B lack is holding his own, e .g.:
13 �c3 �e4 { 1 3 ... �e7 1 4 {)h4
±) 1 4 §e1 �xf3 1 5 itxf3 {)xd4
1 6 itg4+ itg5 1 7 �xd 5 itxg4 1 8
h g §ad8 = - analysis.
B2
5 {)xe4
6 §e1
6 �c3 ! ? is not d angerous for
B lack : 6 ... �xc 3 ! 7 be d5 8 �b5
.Q.e7 9 �e5 (9 �xd4 0-0 +) 9 ...
.Q.d7 10 �xd7 itxd 7 1 1 cd a6 1 2
.Q.a4 b5 1 3 .Q.b3 {)a5 14 §e1 0-0
1 5 .Q.xd5 itxd5 1 6 §xe7 c5 ! +
Sokolov-Grodzensky, corres 1 976.
6 d5 (93)
93
w
7 .Q.xd5
We also look at Canal 's 7 {)c3 :
(a) 7 .. dc4 8 §xe4+ .Q.e7 (Worse is
.
8 ... �e6 9 �xd4 �xd4 1 0 §xd4
itc8 ? ! 1 1 .Q.g5 .Q.d6 1 2 �e4 ± or
1 0 ... .Q.d6 1 1 .Q.f4 :t ) 9 �xd4 f5
and further:
(a 1 ) 1 0 .Q.h6 ! ? fe ( 1 0 . .. gh ? ! is
dangerous, viz . 1 1 ith5+ �f8 1 2
�xf5 w ith a strong attack for

White , but possible is 1 0 . . . �f8 !
1 1 �xc6 �xd 1 + 1 2 §xd 1 fe 1 3
�xe7 gh 1 4 �xc8 §xc8 1 5 §d7
�e8 1 6 §g7 �f8 ) 1 1 .Q.xg7 �f7 !
= other queen moves:
unclear.
(a2) 10 § f4 0..0 1 1 �xc6 �xd 1
1 2 �xd 1 b e 1 3 §xc4 .Q.d6 1 4 �c3
(Weaker are 1 4 §xc6 ? ! .Q.b 7 1 5
�c3 §ae8 1 6 §e3 f4 + o r 1 4 .Q.e3
f4 15 .Q.d4 §f5 ! + Ragozin­
Botvi nnik, Leni ngrad 1 930, but
possible is 14 .Q.f4 .Q.a6 1 5 §d4 =: .)
14 ... c5 1 5 .Q.f4 .Q.e6 1 6 §a4
.Q.d 7 1 7 §c4 .Q.e6 =.
(b) 7 ... dc3 8 .Q.xd5 .Q.e6 (After
8 ... f5 ? 9 �g5 White obtains a
strong attack.) 9 .Q.xe4 (9 §xe4?
'<Je7 + + ) and furthe r:
( b 1 ) 9 ... .Q.b4 10 b3 (White gets
nothing with 1 0 �e2 ? ! cb 1 1 .Q.xb2
.Q.xe 1 1 2 §xe1 0-0 1 3 "C'tb5 h6 1 4
.Q.a3 §e8 1 5 �xb7 .Q.d5 + + M i kkov­
Aru laid, Viljandi 1 960, but 1 0 .Q.d3
is worthy of attention.) 10 ... �xd 1
1 1 §xd1 0-0 1 ? (after 1 1 . . . 1 1 6 1 2
.Q.f4 .Q.a5 1 3 �e5 �d 8 1 4 §d3
c6 1 5 §ad 1 White has compen­
sation for the pawn, Podtserov­
Khmelnitzky, corres 1 953.) 1 2 .Q.f4
.Q.a5 1 3 a3 §ad 8 1 4 �g5 h6 1 5
�xe6 fe 1 6 §xd8 §xd8 1 7 .Q.xc6
be 1 8 §e1 �f7 + Sem kov-Sydor,
Varna 1 977.
(b2) 9 ··- "C'txd 1 ! 1 0 §xd 1 cb 1 1
.Q.xb2 f6 1 2 §e1 ( I f 1 2 �d4, then
1 2 ... �xd4 1 3 .Q.xd4 0-0-0 ! + )
Levin-Bannik, Len ingrad 1 94 7)
�f7 1 3 .Q.c3 (Worse is 1 3 �d4?
�xd4 14 .Q.xd4 §d8 + .) 1 3 ... .Q.c5
1 4 §ab 1 �d8 - N i kitin.
Also possible is 7 ... .Q.e6 8 .Q.xd 5
.Q.xd 5 9 �xe4 .Q.e 7 1 0 �xd4 0-0
1 1 �xc6 .Q.xc6 1 2 .Q.f4 §c8 =.
Two Knight's Defence: 4d4 97
7 �xd5
8 �c3 �aS (94)
Most com mon. We consider
(a) 8 ... �c4? 9 �d2! �a6 1 0 �d5
"C'ta5 1 1 c4 ! .Q.e6 1 2 �b3 �a4
1 3 �xc7+ �d8 1 4 �xe6+ wins ­
Schlechter.)
(b) 8 .•. �5 9 �xe4 .Q.e7 (or 9 ...
.Q.e6 10 �xd4 �xd4 1 1 �xd4 .Q.e7
1 2 .Q.g5 ! ±) 1 0 .Q.g5 0-0 ( 1 0 . .. f6
1 1 �xd4 �xd4 1 2 �xd4 0-0 1 3
.Q.d 2 ± ) 1 1 �xd4 ± Keres.
(c) 8 ... �d8 9 �xe4 (9 §xe4+
.Q.e7 1 0 �xd4 f5 ! = is considered
in the Canal variation 7 �c3, and
after 9 .Q.g5 .Q.e7 1 0 .Q.xe7 �xe7
1 1 '<Jxe4 .Q.g4 1 2 �xd4 �xd4 1 3
.Q.xd4 the game is leve l , Rossolimo­
Bronste i n , Munich OL 1 958.) 9 ...
.Q.e 7 1 0 .Q.g5 .Q.e6 ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1
Q.xe7 '/J/xe7 1 2 �xd4 = Keres) 1 1
.Q.xe7 �xe7 1 2 �eg5 �d5 1 3 �d2
and White has compensation for
the sacrificed pawn.
(d) 8 ... �h5 9 �xe4 .Q.e6 (9 ...
.Q.c7? ! 10 .Q.g5 .Q.e6 1 1 .Q.xe7 �xc7
1 2 �xd4 ± Chigorin-J anowski ,
Paris 1 900) 1 0 .Q.g5 ( 1 0 �eg5?
0:0-0 +) and further:
(d 1 ) 10 ... .Q.d6 1 1 Q.f6 (White gets
nowhere with 1 1 �xd6 cd 1 2 "C'td2
0..0 1 3 §e4 ? ! .Q.g4 ! + Friedrich­
Dorov, corres 1 980; better i s 1 3
.Q.f4, but even here Black gets a
good game after 1 3 . . . �d5) 1 1 ...
0-0 12 �xd6 cd 1 3 .Q.xd4 .Q.g4
1 4 §e3 §ae8 = Gligoric .
(d2) 1 0 .. . .Q.b4 1 1 c3 1 1 '<Jxd4
�xd 1 1 2 §exd 1 �xd4 1 3 §xd4
promises little for White, i .e. 1 3 ...
.Q.e7 14 §e1 §d8 15 §a4 a6 1 6
.Q.xe7 �xe7 1 7 �c5 § d 2 1 8 §c4
 98 Two Knight's Defence: 4d4
�dB 1 9 �xe6 fe 20 �fl §fB = -ltb4? 1 2 a3 -ltc4 1 3 �xe6! §xd1 +
Peshina-Govashel ishvi l i , USS R 1 97S
or 1 3 ... -'laS 14 �cS Q.b6 ! 1 S
�xe6 fe 1 6 §e4 0-0 Pl isetsky)
= but 1 1 ... �xd 4 1 2 §xd4 Q.b4 with
1 1 ... de 1 2 be -'laS ( 1 2 ... .Q.e7
1 3 § b 1 ! ±) 1 3 h4 -ltg4 ! ( 1 3 ... h6?
1 4 -'lg3 *g6 1 S hS -lth7 1 6 -ltb3 0-
0-0 1 7 §xe6! ± Savery mattu­
Orlov, Mun ich 1 972) 1 4 �g3 Q.b6
1 S §b 1 -ltc4 with a sharp game
and equal chances. Yudin-Piisetsky,
USS R 1 979.
(d3) 10 . .. h6 1 1 Q.f6 -ltg6 (worse is
1 1 ... -ltaS? 1 2 �xd4! gf 1 3 �xf6+
�e7 1 4 b4! �xb4 1 S �xe6 �xf6
1 6 -ltd4+ wins Rosso l imo-Prins,
Bilbao 1 9S 1 , but possible is 1 1 ...
.A.e7 1 2 .A.xe7 �xe7 1 3 �xd4
-ltxd 1 1 4 �c6+ be 1 S § ad 1
§hdB, Stein-Magen , I srael 1 979
and now 1 6 �cS �) 1 2 �h4 -lth7
1 3 -lthS �d7 ! 1 4 .A.xd4 (on 1 4
-ltbS good i s 1 4 ... a6! and not 1 S
-ltxb7? because of 1 S ... §a7
winning) 1 4 ... §eB ( 1 4 ... �xd4?
1 S §ad 1 ±) 1 S -ltbS �cB unclear,
Stein-Balshan , I srael 1 979.
94
w advantage for White.
9 �xe4
Unpleasant for White is 9 �xd4
(after 9 § xe4+ .Q.e6 10 �xd4 0-0-0
1 1 .A.e3 Black should p l ay not 1 1 ...
1 4 §xd 1 -lta6 1 S �xc7 ! ! winn ing,
(Simonian-Zhukov, USS R 1 96B ,
a good game, AI-M awla-Hami l ton,
Skopje OL 1 972) 9 ... �xd4 1 0
-ltxd4 fS, for exam ple:
(a) 1 1 .Q.d2 itcS 1 2 -lta4+ �7
(worse is 1 2 . . . .Q.d7 1 3 �xe4 fe
1 4 -ltxe4+ �d B 1 S -ltxb7 §cB
Rozinov-Zbanetto, corres 1 9S 3, and
now 1 6 -ltxa7 ! oo - Keres) 1 3 �xe4
fe 1 4 §xe4 -ltc6 ! 1 S §f4+ �gB +
Volkov-Mazuren ko, corres 1 95 5 .
( b ) 1 1 ..11 h 6 -ltc5 1 2 .Q.xg7 §gB
1 3 �xe4 -�!hd4 1 4 ..11x d4 fe 1 5
§xe4+ �d7 + .
(c) 1 1 ..11 g 5 �f7 ! (after 1 1 ... -lt-c5
1 2 itdB+ �f7 1 3 §ad 1 .A.e6 1 4
-ltxaB �xg5 1 5 h 4 �e4 1 6 §xe4!
fe 1 7 �xe4 White has compensation
for the sacrificed piece - Keres)
1 2 �xe4 fe 1 3 -ltc4+ ..11 e6 ( 1 3 . . .
§g6! + ) 1 4 -�he4 Sem kov-Pinter,
Varna 1 977, and now 1 4 ... itf5
1 5 thb7 Q.d6 + .
9 Q.e6
Worse is 9 . . . ..11 e 7 1 0 .Q.g5 0-0
1 1 ..11 x e7 �xe7 1 2 -ltxd4 with an
B21 10 �eg5
B22 1 0 Q.d2
Weaker is 1 0 Q.g5 because of 1 0
... h 6 (also good i s 1 0 ... .Q.b4 1 1
§e2 0-0 1 2 a3 ..11 d 6 1 3 �xd6 cd
1 4 ..11 f4 .Q.g4 + Cortlever-Euwe,
Am sterdam 1 93B) 1 1 ..11 h 4 .Q.b4
(l l ... g5? ! 1 2 �f6+ �e7 1 3 b4 !
unclear) 1 2 §e2 gS 1 3 a3 ( 1 3
�f6+ �e7 1 4 a3 Q.d6 1 5 b4 -tt f5
1 5 b5 -ltxf6 1 7 be gh wins) .Q.e 7
1 4 b4 -ltd5 1 5 .Q.g3 ( 1 5 c4? ! -ltxc4
1 6 § c 1 -ltd5 1 7 ..11 g 3 0-0-0 +
 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4 99

Romanovsky-Belavenets, Moscow 4le5 ± ) 1 6 §exc6 be 1 7 ite6+ ( 1 7

1 939) 1 5 ... 0·0-0 + Medina­ �e5 ? §eB 1 B l'ta6+ *b7 + +
Keres, Madrid 1 943. Kostic-Vid mar, Bled 1 93 1 ) 1i'bB
82 1 1 B l'te4 ( 1 B �e5 1i>aB 1 9 l'txc6+
1 0 <ileg5 0-0-0 l'tb7 20 l'tc2 c5 21 § b 1 l'td5 +
1 1 <ilxe6 fe Estrin-Golovko, Moscow 1 94B) d3
1 2 §xe6 Q.d6 (95) 19 �e5 1i>aB ! 20 �xc6 l'tb 7 21
§c3 (21 l'ta4 §eB 22 g3 §e2 23
§c3 ..Q.b4! 24 §b3 §xd2 25 §xb4
§xa2 ! +) 21 ... ..Q.c5 ! 22 §xeS
§heB 23 itc4 l'tb 1 + 24 l'tc1
itxc 1 + 25 §xc1 §d6 Harksen­
=

Bogoljubow, corres 1 932.

1 3 ..Q.g5
After 1 3 l'te2 ith5 Black has a
good game, for exam ple :
(a) 14 g3? { Bad are 1 4 Q.g5 ?
..llx h2+ ! + and 1 4 ..Q.d2? d 3 1 5 ite3
<ild4! + ) 1 4 ... -ileS ! 1 5 1i>g2 §hfB
(a) 1 2··- l'td5 ( 1 2 ... h 6 1 3 Q.d2 1 6 �d4 �g4 1 7 �f3 §xf3 ! 1 B
l'th5 1 4 4le5 :!; ) 1 3 l'te2 h6 { 1 3 ... itxf3 l'txh2+ 1 9 1i>f1 ith3 20 1i>e2
lld6 1 4 Q.g5 §dfB 1 5 �h4 d3 1 6 4lh2 winning, Tietz-G ragger, Vienna
cd g5 1 7 ..Q.g3 1i>d7 1 B §e4! ± 1 963.
Canai-Montice l l i , Venice 1 94B) 1 4 {b) 14 h3 §deB 1 5 ..Q.d2 �e5 !
llf4 g5 1 5 1lg3 d3 1 6 cd g4 1 7 1 6 §xeB §xeB 1 7 �xd4 l'txe2 1 B
§xc6 ! ± Tartakower-Steiner, Buda­ <ilxe2 �c4! {weaker is 1 B ... �f3+ ? !
pest 1 921 . 1 9 g f !he2 2 0 §d 1 llc5 2 1 �g5!
{b) 1 2 ... ..ll e 7 { Rubinstein) 1 3 <ile5 ! followed by §d2 ) 1 9 ..Q.e3 4lxb2
=

( 1 3 l'te2 ..Q.f6! 1 4 �f4 l'tf5 1 5 ..Q.g3 + Solmanis-Neishtadt, R iga 1 955.

de 16 cd l'txd 3 + Antoshin­ 13 §deB
Spassky, Len ingrad 1 954) 1 3 . . . Keres considered that 1 3 ...
<ilxe5 { 1 3 ... l'td5 1 4 l'tg4 ± ) 1 4 §dfB was also a good continuation,
§xe7 §heB! { 1 4 ... §d7 1 5 §xd7 and if 14 l'te2, then 14 ... 1i>d7 w ith
<ilxd 7 1 6 ..Q.f4 §eB 1 7 h3 l'tf5 1 B the threat of § xf3. Praxis of recent
..Q.g3 :1; Tartakower-Tarrasch , Gate­ years, however, has placed thi s
borg 1 920) 1 5 �d2 l'tb5 ! 1 6 §xeB evaluation under suspicion . After
§xeB 1 7 l'th5 g6 1 B l'th3+ l'td7 = 1 4 ite2 1i>d7 1 5 §e 1 ! {weaker is
Bruckner-Bobotsov, Sofia 1 954. 15 ..Q.h4 §eB ) White has the
=

{c) 1 2 ·-· l'tf5 1 3 l'te2 h6 { 1 3 ... better chances, for example:

d3?! 14 cd l'txd 3 15 ..Q.g5 ! ±) 1 4 (a) 15 ... §xf3 16 l'txf3 ! (after 1 6
..Q.d2 l'txc2 { 1 4 . . . ..Q.d6 1 5 l'te4 !) ..lld 2 ith5 1 7 l'txf3 Q.xh2+ 1 8 e>f1
1 5 § c 1 l'txb2 (worse is 1 5 ... l'tf5 l'txf3 1 9 gf Q.d6 B l ack has com­
1 6 §exc6! be 1 7 l'txe6+ 1i'bB 1 B pensation for the exchan ge) 1 6 ...
100 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4
l'txg5 1 7 l'tf7+ {)e7 1 B f4! l'tc5
1 9 §xe 7+! -'lxe 7 20 §e5 l'tb6
21 §xe7+ �dB 22 l'txg7 wins,
Sundquist-Gabran, corres 1 975.
(b) 1 5 ... d3 1 6 l'txd 3 ! ( 1 6 cd ?
§xf3 1 7 .Q.d2 l'th5 + ) 1 6 . . . §xf3
1 7 l'txf3 l'txg5 1 B l'tf7+ .Q.e7 ( 1 B . . .
{)e 7 1 9 §xd6+ c d 2 0 l'te6+ �cB
21 l'tcB+ wins or 1 B ... �cB 1 9 §eB+
§xeB 20 §xeB+ {)dB 21 l'te6+ �bB
22 g3! g6 23 §xe7+! 1 -0 Armas­
Botes, Romania 1 977.
1 4 l'te2
1 4 l'te1 l'txe 1 + 1 5 l'taxe1 §xe6
1 6 §xe6 �d7 =.
14 �d7
1 5 §e1 l'txe 1 +
1 6 {)xe1 §xe6
1 7 l'tg4 §heB
1 B {)d3 {)e5
1 9 {)xe5+ -'lxe5=
The game Ru isdonk-Waige l ,
corres 1 976 continued 2 0 f4 (more
promising is 20 g3 h6 2 1 llf4
.Q.f6 22 h4 = E strin-Krogius, �F
USS R Ch 1 949) 20 . . . .lld 6 ! and
now instead of 21 f5 ? §e4 ! + White
should have continued 2 1 .ll h 4 g6
+ Analysis.
C22
1 0 .Q.d2 (96)
10 .Q.b4
(a) 10 ... l'th5 ! ? 1 1 llg5 - var. C21 .
(b ) 1 0 ... l'tb6 1 1 .llg 5 ( 1 1 {legS
yields noth ing: 1 1 ... 0·0·0 1 2
{)xe6 fe 1 3 {)g5 § d 7 1 4 {)xc6
l'txb2 with a good game for Black.
Espig-Radu l ov, Kecskemet 1 972)
1 1 .. . h6 1 2 .ll h 4 .llc 7 ( 1 2 ... g5
1 3 {)f6+ �dB 1 4 .Q.g3 ± A . Geller­
Neishtadt, � F 24th USS R Ch
1 956) 1 3 .ll x e7 �xc7 1 4 {)g3 g6
1 5 l'td2 ± Radulov-Drumev, Bul·
garia Ch 1 963.
(c) 10 ... l'td5 1 1 .Q.g5 and further:
( c 1 ) 1 1 ... l'tc4? ! 1 2 {)fd2 l'tb5
1 3 {)b3 h6 1 4 1lh4 l'tb6 15 *hS
.Q.e 7 1 6 {leeS ± Pogats-Szily,
Budapest 1 96 1 .
(c2) 1 1 ... l'tc4? ! 1 2 .ll x e7 �xe7
1 3 l'td 3 ( 1 3 c4 de 1 4 l'tc2 §hd8 !
with chances for both sides -
Keres) 1 3 ... §ad8 1 4 *a3+!
( 1 4 §ad l ? �d 7 1 5 {)xd4 �c8 +
Cafferty-G iigori c , Hastings 1 959/
60) 1 4 ... �d7 1 5 {)c5+ �c8 1 6
b4! a 6 1 7 b5 ! {)a7 ( 1 7 ... ab 1 8
§e5! wins ) 1 8 ba ± Zhu ravlycv­
Dzhanoyev, USSR 1 976.
(c3) 1 1 ... .Q.d6 12 .Q.f6 0-0 1 3
{)xd4 ( 1 3 {)xd 6 l'txd 6 1 4 .ll x d4
.Q.g4 =) 1 3 ... {)xd4 1 4 l'txd4
l'txd4 1 5 -'lxd4 §fd8 1 6 {)xd6
( 1 6 . . . -'lc3 .Q.e7 1 7 b3 §d7 1 8
§ad 1 §ad8 = Maric -Dj urasevic ,
Yugoslavia C h 1 956) 1 6 . . . §xd6
1 7 .Q.e3 §adB = I . Zaitsev-Averbakh,
USS R 1 964.
(d) 10 ... *f5 1 1 .Q.g5 h6 ( 1 1 ...
.Q.c5? 1 2 {)h4 1 3 c4! ± ± Kinzei­
Gragger, Vienna 1 952) and further:
( d 1 ) 1 2 .Q.h4 .Q.c5 1 3 b4 -'lxb4
(Worthy of consideration is 1 3 . . .
..ll b 6 ! ? 1 4 a 4 a5 ! 1 5 b 5 {) b 4 1 6

�xd4 �xd4 17 ttxd4 0-0 1 8 lhc 1
§fe8 E id lein- 1 . Zai tsev, Moscow
=
1 9S9) 1 4 �xd4' �xd4 1 S *xd4
.Q.xe1 1 6 *xg7 .Q.xf2+ 1 (worse 1 6
. . . �d 77 1 7 §xe1 bS 1 8 '!'td4+
�c6 1 9 �f6 §hc8 20 �eS �b7 21
§ b 1 a6 22 a4 §d8 23 '!'tcS §ac8
24 �g3! ± + or 20 . . . �c4 21 §b1 !
*e6 22 *cS+ �b7 23 §xbS+!
�xbS 24 *xbS+ *b6 2S �cS+
�b8 26 �d7+ wins - Estrin) 1 7
�xf2 �d 7 1 8 §d 1 + �c6 1 9 ttc3+
*cS 20 *f3+ �dS 21 *f6+ �e6
= E strin.
(d2) 1 2 *d3 *d S ! ? ( 1 2 ... *aS 1 3
�h4 �b4 1 4 §e2 ) 1 3 �f6 �d7
= *d7 1 6 �g5 ±) 1 6 §xc7+! <3Jxc7
1 4 §ad 1 §e8 1 S �xd4 ( 1 S �xd4!?)
1S ... �xd4 16 �xd4 �c8 17 �c3
*d7 1 8 *e2 *c6 1 9 �bS �cS ! =
Sveshnikov--Kuzm in, USS R 1 978 .
1 1 <tJxd4 !
The chief point of the entire
variatio n ! White gets noth ing with
1 1 .Q.xb4 ? ! *xb4 1 2 �egS ( 1 2 c3
*xb2 1 3 cd 0-0-0 +) 1 2 ... 0-0-0
1 3 �xe6 fe 1 4 �gS §d7 1 S �xe6
§e8 1 6 *g4 d 3 ! + Alexander­
Euwe, England-Holland 1 949.
11 �xd4
1 1 ... �xd2 1 2 �xc6 be 1 3
*xd2 *xd 2 1 4 �xd2 :!: .
1 2 c3 (9 7}
12 �e7
We consider other continuations:
(a) 1 2 ... �e2+ 1 3 *xe2 �e7 14 c4
*fS 1 S �c3 0-0 1 6 �g3 *gS 1 7
�hS g6 1 8 �g3 §fe8 1 9 b3 �d7
20 �e4 *f4 2 1 ttb2 ± Sveshnikov­
Makarichev, USS R 1 97S.
(b) 12 . . . 0-0 1 3 cb *fS ( 1 3 ...
ttdS 1 S �gS f6 1 S .Q.f4 ± ) 1 4 §c1
(No good is 14 *a4? �dS 1 S �g3
�f3+! 1 6 �h 1 *d 3 + j acobs-
Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4 707
97
B
Rivize, Los Angeles 1 9S6.) and
further:
( b 1 ) 14 ... �dS? 1 S <tJg3 ttg6 ( 1 S ...
1 7 .Q.f4+ �c8 1 8 *xd4 b6 1 9 §e7!
±± Konstantinopolsky.
(b2) 14 ... �xa2 1 S *a4 ! �dS 1 6
�g3+ �f3+ 1 7 �h 1 *g4 1 8 h3
*h4 1 9 �fS *f6 Malchev-Gudev,
corres 1 960, and now 20 §e7! ± ±
Estrin .
(b3) 14 ... �b8 1 S §cS �dS 1 6
�g3 *d7 1 7 �gS+ Wolf-Cortlever,
Brussels 1 9S3.
(b4) 1 4 ... §d5 1S �g3 *f6 ! ( 1 S
... *g6? is worse because of 1 6 �f4
�c6 1 7 *a4 * f6 1 8 �xc7 �xc7
1 9 b5 '!'td4 20 b4+ Kinzel-Pfleger,
Clare Benedict Teams 1 964.) 1 6
�e3 §hd8 1 7 *a4 �b8 1 8 �c5
�xeS 1 9 be �c6 20 *a3 *g6
with an advantage for B l ack.
Polyantsev-Katalymov, Spartak Ch
1 978.
(c) 1 2 ... 0-0 1 3 cb *dS ( 1 3 ...
*fS is not as good in view of 1 4
�c 1 � ad 8 1 5 �cS �dS 1 6 <tJg3 ± ±
or 1 4 ... �xa2 1 S �c5 ! *d7 1 6
�c3 �ad 8 1 7 �gS f6 1 8 �g4 with
a winning attack for White - Euwe)
14 � c 1 ( 1 4 .Q.c3 �ad8 1 5 <tJc5
1 02 Two Knight 's Defence: 4d4
�b8 1 6 �e4 �e6 1 H h d S �xdS
Hasin-Bannik, USS R Ch 1 9S7) 1 4
. . . b6 ( 1 4 ... �ad8? ! 1 S �cS t'txa2
1 6 �c3 �fS 1 7 *g4 �dB 1 8 �f6+
*h8 1 9 t'th4 ± ± Vitolins-Koriakin,
Leningrad 1 966) 1 S �xc7 �ad 8
1 6 �c3 � b S 1 7 l�H3 �xc3 ( 1 7 . . .
�xc7? 18 �f6+ wins) 18 t'txc3
�c8 1 9 a3 � xc7 20 t'txc7 �c8 2 1
t'tf4 t'td4 M aric-Gi igoric , Yugo­
= Purhonen, corres 1 980.
slavia 19S7.
1 3 cd t'tdS (98)
Worse is 1 3 ... t'tfS in v iew of 1 4
�b4 �xb4 1 S t'ta4+ �d7 ( 1 S ... c6
1 6 t'txb4 ±) 1 6 �d6+! *f8 1 7
t'txb4 cd 1 8 t'txd6+ *g8 1 9 �eS
*g4 20 h3 ±
1 4 11b4
If 1 4 �f4 then 1 4 ... c6 1 S �c3
t'tfS ! gives Black a good game.
Also possible is 14 �c1 c6 ( 1 4
. . . 0-0-0? 1 S �f4 c6 1 6 t'ta4 ±
Estrin) 1 S Q.g5! ( 1 S �xeS Q.xc5
1 6 �xeS t'td7 Estrin) 1 S ... .ilxgS
= 'hidden reefs', Black has at l east an
1 6 �c5 t'td7 1 7 �xg5 0-0-0 1 8
= �xg7 t'txd4 1 9 t'txd4 �xd4 20 a3
Thormann-Vogt, E. German j unior
Ch 1 967 and now I recommend
20 ... h 6 ! + with a good game for
Black.
14 �xb4
After 14 ... c6? 1 S .11x e7 *xe7
1 6 �c5 �he8 1 7 �e5 White
obtains the advantage, Kuosmanen­
1 5 t'ta4+ t'tc6
1 6 t'txb4 0-0-0
1 7 �c5
(a) 1 7 �ac 1 t'tb6 1 8 t'tc3 lhd4
19 �cS �hd8 20 �xe6 fe 21
� xe6 SefC-Aister, Czechoslovakia
=
Ch 1 9SS.
(b) 1 7 �c3 t'tb6 1 8 t'txb6 ab 1 9
�ad l = Tinnesand-Konstantinop­
olsky corres 1 958.
17 �d5
1 8 �ac 1
Weaker is 1 8 f3 ? �he8 1 9 b3 b6
+.
18 t'tg6
1 9 g3 t'tb6 =
Marie -Zwaig, Sandef)ord 1 975.
After 20 t'ta3 �he8 2 1 §e3
lhe3 22 fe Black should continue
22 ... f5 ! , hindering the move e4,
with approximately equal chances.
Conclud ing our examination of
the variation 4 d4 ed 5 0-0 �xe4 ! ,
it i s possible to reach the conclusion
that despite the abundance of
equal game in the main variations.
10 Two K n i g h t ' s Defe n ce : 4cilg5

1 e4 eS A sharp cou nterattack, proposed

2 4)f3 4)c6 in 1 890 by the Czech chessplayer
3 llc4 4)f6 K. Traxler. [ A l though known in
4 4)g5 (99) many countries as the Wilkes­
Barre Variation, after the Pennsyl­
vania (USA) chess club which
deeply analysed and adopted it in
postal games in the 1 920s. - tr.]
A 1 5 4)xf7
A2 5 d4
A3 5 .Q.xf7+
White mJ.Jst continue along one
of these sharp paths, as after the
quiet move 5 0-0 (5 b4 dS! 6 ed
4)xb4 ) 5 ... 0-0 6 d3 dS (also
=

good is 6 ... h6) 7 ed .llg4 8 ttd 2

Now B I ack can choose betwee n : {)xdS 9 4)e4 ..ll e7 B l ack gets an
A 4 . . . llcS excellent game. Djaja- Rabar, Yugo­
B 4 . . . dS slav Ch 1 955.
I nsufficient is 4 . . . 4)xe4? in Al
view of 5 .ll x f7+ (worse is 5 4)xf7 ? !
"ith4! 6 0-0 .ll c S 7 d4 4)xd4 8
lle3 d6! w ith a very strong attack
for Black) 5 . . . 'l/e7 6 d41 dS (6
... h6 7 4)xe4 'l/xf7 8 dS ± or
8 de ± ) 7 4)c3 ! 4)xc3 (7 ... 4)f6
8 de {)xeS 9 tte2 ± ) 8 be ttd6 {on
8 ... ..Q.fS there follows 8 ttf3 ± ,
and after 8 ... e4 very strong is
9 f3 ! ± ) 9 a4 <!'d 8 10 ..Q.g8! <!'e8
1 1 ..ll x h7 ± .
A
4 ..Q.cS
104 Two Knight's Defence: #)g5
counterattack is em bodied in this
move.
5 ... 'f!re7? doesn't work because
of 6 �xh8 �xf2+ 7 �xf2 �xe4+
8 'i\>g1 'f!rc5+ 9 d4 �xd4 1 0 �e3
'f!rxc4 1 1 llxd4 ed 1 2 'f!rh5+ with a
clear advantage for White.
Al l 6 �xf2
A1 2 6 �fl
6 �e2 is inferior in view of 6 ...
�d4+ 7 �d3 b5 ! 8 �b3 (8 �xd8
be+ 9 'itxc4 �a6+ 1 0 'itb4 �e2 !
+ + ) 8 ... �xe4! ! 9 �xd8 �c5+
1 0 'itc3 �e2+ 1 1 'f!rxe2 �d4+ 1 2
'itb4 aS 1 3 'itxb5 �a6+ 1 4 'itxa5
�d3+ 1 5 'itb4 �a6+ 1 6 'ita4 �b4+
1 7 'itxb4 c5 mate! Reinisch­
Traxler, Prague 1 890.
Al l
6 'itxf2 �xe4+ (lOT)
7 'itg 1
Very dangerous is 7 'ite3 ? in view
of 7 .. 'f!re7! (7 ... 'f!rh4+ leads to
.
equality 8 g3 �xg3 9 hg 'f!rd4+ 1 0
'itf3 d 5 1 1 §h4 e4 1 2 'i\>g2 §f8
1 3 'f!rh5 lhf7 1 4 �d 5 'f!rf2+ 1 5
'ith 1 'f!rfl + Y2-Y:z, Whitney-Khromik,
corres 1 976), and now:
(a) 8 �xh8 'f!rg5+ 9 �xe4 d5+
Black has a decisive attack.
(b) 8 'itxe4 d5+ 9 �xd 5 'f!rh4+ 1 0
g4 �xg4 1 1 �xc6+ ( 1 1 'f!re1 +
.Q.f5+ ! wins) 1 1 ... �d7+ 1 2 �e3
'f!rd4+ 1 3 �e2 be 1 4 §g1 .ll g4+
1 5 §xg4 'f!rxg4+ 1 6 �e1 'f!rh4+
1 7 'itfl 0-0 1 8 'f!re2 §xf7+ 1 7 �g1
aaf8 20 d3 §f2 0- 1 , Wirth­
Fahnenschmidt, Marburg 1 955.
(c) 8 d 3 'f!rc5+ 9 �xe4 d5+ wins.
(d) 8 c3 'f!rc5+ 9 d4 ed 10 cd 'f!re7
1 1 'itf3 d 5 ! and in view of the
threat - �g4+ , Black has the
advantage - Estrin .
7 'f!rh4
8 g3
I f 8 'f!rfl ? ! then ... §f8 with a
very strong attack for Black, i .e.
9 g3 (9 d3 �d6! +) 9 ... 'f!re7 1 0
d 4 d 5 ! 1 1 �xd 5 �xd4 1 2 .llx e4
§xf7 1 3 'f!rg2 'f!rc5 1 4 �e3 �h3 !
1 5 'f!rxh3 �f3+ 1 6 'itg2 'f!re3 1 7
'f!re6+ 'itf8 1 8 �xf3 'f!rxf3+ winning,
Klein-Schmidt, corres 1 980.
8 �xg3 (1 02)
9 �xh8
Or :
(a) 9 'f!rel ? 'f!rxc4 1 0 �xh8 {}e2+
1 1 'itf2 'f!rf4+ 1 2 'itxe2 {}d4+ 1 3
'itd3 d 5 1 4 {}a3 {}e2 0-1 Monolov­
Sapundzhiev, Varna 1 963) .
(b) 9 hg 'f!rxg3+ 1 0 �fl §f8 1 1
*h5 ( 1 1 'f!re 1 'f!rf4+ 1 2' 'itg2 'f!rg4+!

1 3 �h2 *xc4 1 4 �g5 h6 1 5 �h3
d5 with three pawns for the piece
and a continuing attack - Estrin)
1 1 ... d 5 ! 12 .11x d5 �b4! ( 1 2 ...
�d4 1 3 *h2 *g4 14 *xeS ..11e 6
1 5 ..11 x e6 *f3+ 16 �g1 �e2+ 1 7
�h2 *f2+ 1 8 �h3 *f3 t , 'Pioneer­
skaya Pravda'-Tal , 1 968/9) 1 3 .11c4
( 1 3 ..11 b 3 �xc2! 1 4 §h4 g6 1 5
*xh 7 .11f5 1 6 �c3 ..11 d 3+ 1 7 �e2
g5 + + Zhave i Kiss , corres 1 978)
- *e4 1 S hg *xe3 1 6 *xe3 �xe3 + .
1 3 ... b5! ( 1 3 ... �xc2 ? 1 4 *h2 ± )
1 4 llb3 ( 1 4 11xb5+ 1 5 .11 c4 �d5+)
1 4 ... �xc2 ! 15 d4 ( 1 5 *h2 *xh2
16 §xh2 �xa1 + ) 15 ... �xa1 1 6
..Q.d 5 ..11 b 7! + Klemm-Hentzgen ,
cor res 1 963.
(c) 9 d4 �xh 1 (9 ... �e4 i s also
good , viz . 1 0 ..Q.e3 ed 1 1 �xh8 d e
1 2 *f3 �e5 1 3 ..Q.f7+ �d8 1 4
*xe3 *g4+ 1 S �f1 *d 1 + 1 6 �2
*g4 + Augustat-Walter, corres
1 977) 1 0 �xh8 (if 1 0 .ll g S then 1 0
. . . *f2 1 1 �xh 1 §f8 1 2 �xeS
*xd4 1 3 *xd4 �xd4 1 4 �c3 d6
1 S �d3 m3 1 6 lle3 ..Q.fS! with a
good game for B l ack. Estrin) 1 0 ...
�xd4! and further, accord ing to
Estr i n 's analysis:
(c 1 ) 1 1 �xh 1 d S ! 1 2 .ll x dS llg4
1 3 *fl 0-0-0 1 4 �c3 ( 1 4 llg2
..11e 2! +) §xdS! 1 S �xdS .11f3+
1 6 �g1 �e2+ 1 7 *xe2 *g4 + )
(c2) 1 1 �c3 m2 ! 1 2 *fl m3+
1 3 �g2 d S ! 1 4 �xf3 ( 1 4 *xf2
*xh2+ 1S �xf3 llg4+ 16 �xg4
*xf2 +) 14 ... llg4+ 1 S �e3 d4+
1 6 �d2 e4 1 7 �e2 e3+ 1 8 �e 1
0-0-0! with a strong attack for
Black.
(c3) 1 1 ..11 e 3 �fS ! ( 1 1 ... d S ? ! 1 2
..11x d4!) 1 2 *e2 ( 1 2 *f1 *g4+
1 3 �h 1 *xe4+ 1 4 �g1 *xe3+ 1 S
Two Knight's Defence: 4lf)g5 7 05
�h 1 *e4+ 1 6 �g1 d 5 + or 1 2 * f3
*e1 + 1 3 .Q.fl *xe3+ 1 4 *xe 3
�xe3 1 S ..11 d 3 �8 ! 1 6 ..11 x h7
g6 1 7 �xg6+ �g7 18 �xeS �xh 7
1 9 4:la3 d 6 ' + ) 1 2 ... �hg3 ! 1 3
..Q.f7+ ( after 1 3 *f2 *xc4 1 4 hg
4:lxe3 1 S *xe3 d6 1 6 �c3 ..11e 6
1 7 §fl 0-0-0! 1 8 *xa 7 *d4+ 1 9
*xd4 ed. B l ack has the advantage
in the endgame. ) 1 3 ... �8 1 4 *f2
(c4) 1 1 *f1 *g4+ 1 2 �xh 1 *e4+
1 3 �g1 *g4+ 1 4 *g2 ( 1 4 �f2
*f3+ 1 S �e1 ? �xc2+ 1 6 �d2
*xf1 1 8 ..Q.xfl �xa1 ? ) 1 4 . . . *d 1 +
+ (Hard ly good is 1 4 ... *xg2+ ? !
1 S �xg2 �xc2 1 6 �c3 �xa 1 1 7
4:ldS ! ; i n the endgame White 's
pieces are quite active. ) 1 S *f1
*g4+ =.
9 d S {7 03)
7 03 B. •.._... �
w . i . .. . i
-�· . .
.
.. . � .&... -
� . �
-
-�- �- . - -
• • • •
ft �
� ft � �"'- •
� �
�
.
�.§ "�
'-"" H�n:m
. "t_}Ji!if • � �§
We also examine:
( a) 9 ... �e4? 10 *f3 4:lgS 1 1 .11 f7 +
�e7 1 2 itg3 �h3+ 1 3 �1 *f6+
(or 1 3 ... *e4 1 4 *xh3 *xh 1 +
1 S �f2 *xc 1 1 6 *h4+ �d6 1 7
..11 b 3 *xb2 1 8 �c3 *xa 1 1 9 �e4
mate , N un-Rohl icek, corres 1 9S6)
1 4 �e 1 �d4 1 S ..I1b3 �f3+ 1 6 �d 1
± Krc-Kausman, corres 1 966.
(b) 9 .. . 4:lxh 1 1 0 * f3 ( 1 0 *f1
 706 Two Knight 's Defence: 4l;)g5

'l'tg4+ 1 1 *xh 1 'tte4+ = ) 1 0 . . .

'ttxc4 1 1 {)a3 {)d4 (worse is 1 1 .. .
7 04. �..��. ....
�� ��� . � -� � liU
"
'ttc 5+ 1 2 d4! 'tt f8 1 3 'ttxf8+ *xf8 � �
w - t ., • � -t�
1 4 d5 ± or 1 1 ... "tt f3 1 2 'ttx f4 . .. . .. .
ef 1 3 {)b5 ± ) 1 2 'tth 5+ g6 1 3
• �
� •t- � �
-�· .. ..
'ttx e5+ 'tte6 1 4 'ttx e6+ de 1 5 c3
Sapundzhiev-Turchen ko, corres
1 966 and now, fo llowing Keres' .. . -�·
advice, 15 ... {)e2+ 1 6 *b 1 .lld 7 .a. D
.a u ft �
� R �
• u
and later *e7, B l ack obtains a
roughly level game.
9 '-"' ..J n
�.�r..z. �iia B
� F!'l
a� �
(c) 9 {)d4 1 0 hg ( Both 1 0 c3 ? Sapundzhiev, corres 1 966.
d 5 ! 1 1 cd ..llg4 1 2 'ttb 3 {)e4 1 3 (b) 1 2 ith5+ g6 1 3 {)xg6 hg 1 4
'tte 3 ..llh 3 ! + + Angelov-Sax, I nter­ itxg6+ *e7 1 5 'C'th7+ *d6 1 6 11le2
city Teams, Budapest 1 967, and 1 0 {)b4+ ! 1 7 *fl .ll h 3+ 1 8 *e1
{)c3 d 5 ! 1 1 h g 'ttx g3+ 1 2 *f1 {)g2+ 1 9 *d 1 {)e3+ Y:z-Y2, Winter­
..ll h 3+ 1 3 lhh3 'ttx h3 1 4 *g1 de Schultz, corres 1 976.
1 5 {)e4 0-0-0 1 6 {)f7 {) f3+ ! 1 7 11 {)xh 1
*f2 'tth 2+ 1 8 *xf3 'tth 5+ 1 9 *g3 1 2 ..ll b 5
'ttx d 1 + Augustat-Walter, corres After 12 'C'txd4 {)xd4 1 3 ..ll b 3
1 979 are bad) 1 0 ... 'ttg 3+ 1 1 *f1 ..ll e6 ! 1 4 *xh 1 (or 1 4 {)c3 0-0-0
*f4+ 1 2 *g2 'l'tg5 :t . 1 5 d3 c 5 ! ) 1 4 . .. 0-0-0 1 5 c3 {)e2
1 0 'tt f3 1 6 {)a3 §f8 ! B lack stands better,
(a) 10 ..ll x d5 ..ll h 3 1 1 'tt f3 ( 1 1 c3? despite being down a piece. Estrin.
{)d4 1 2 ..Q.f3 0-0-0 1 3 {)f7 §f8 12 'l'tg4+
0- 1 Nei kirch-Halir, corres 1 969) Worse is 1 2 ... .ll h 3 in view of
1 1 ... 'ttd 4+ 1 2 'tte 3 'ttx d5 1 3 'ttx g3 1 3 itxd4 ed 14 a4 ! *e7 1 5 §a3
'ttd 4+ 1 4 'tte 3 'C'tg4+ 1 5 'C'tg3 'C'td4+ =. ..Q.f5 1 6 §f3 ± Lepesh kin.
(b) 10 hg 'ttx g3+ 1 1 *f1 ..ll h 3+ 13 *xh 1 .Q.f5 !
· Weaker i s 1 3 ... d4? ! (or 1 3 ...
1 2 §xh3 'ttx h3+ 1 3 *g1 'ttg 3+
1 4 *h 1 Y2-Y2 Mutafov-Sapundzh iev, ..Q.d7? 1 4 ..ll e 2 ith4 15 'ttg 3! ±
cor res 1 96 7. Baratti-Garian i , corres 1 975) 1 4
10 'ttd 4+ (104) 'C'te2 ! 'tt f4 1 5 t;T;>g1 .Q.g4 1 6 'tt f2
1 0 ... {)f5 ! ? is inte resting, i .e . ..ll f3 1 7 itg3 ite4 1 8 d 3 'tte 2 1 9
1 1 .llx d5 {)cd4 1 2 'tte 4 'ttg5+ ! {) d 2 ± Lepesh kin.
1 3 'ttg 2 'C'th4 1 4 h3 {)xc2 oo - 14 d 3
Estrin. 1 4 'C'txe5+? <;t>f8 ! 1 5 'ttg3 itd 1 +
1 1 ite3 1 6 <;t>g2 lll e4+ 1 7 *f2 itg8 + + .
If 1 1 *g2, then 1 1 ... {)f5 ! w ith 14 *f8 1
a good game for B l ack, i .e . This is better than the natural
(a) 1 2 c3 itxc4 1 3 d 3 ith4 1 4 §g1 14 ... 0-0-0 because of 1 5 {)c3 ! d4
..lle 6 15 *h 1 e4 ! 1 6 de de 1 7 'C'tg4 ( 1 5 ... {)d4 1 6 {)f7 {)xc2 1 7 {)xe5
l!hg4 1 8 §xg4 0-0-0 = Angelov- {)xe3 1 8 {)xg4 {)xg4 1 9 .llg 5 ± )
 Two Knight 's Defence: 4-tlg5 707

1 6 ttg3 de 1 7 ttxg4 �xg4 1 8 <tlf7 9 �xf2 �g4 1 0 ttd2 0-0-0 with a

§f8 1 9 Q.c4 ± Lcpesh k i n . strong attack for B l ack) 8 ... Q.h4!
1 5 �d2 9 �xd5 <tld4 1 0 tta3 <tlxd5 1 1
Also possi b le is 1 5 <tld2 ttd 1 + tte7+ �xe7! 12 ed Q.h3 ! + +
1 6 �g2 ttxc2 1 7 �xc6 be 1 8 Apartsev-1 . Zaitsev, Moscow 1 963.
ttxe5 ttxd 3 1 9 ttxc7 tte2+ 20 �g3 {b) 8 �e2 �b6 ! 9 d4 {9 �h5+
tte 1 + 21 �g2 tte2+ = Estrin . �f8 1 0 b3 g6 1 1 �a3 Q.c5 1 2
15 ttd 1 + �xeS ttxc5 1 3 <tlxg6 hg 1 4 �f3 de
I f 1 5 . . . c4, then 1 6 <tlc3 ! d4 1 5 �xe4 <tlxe4 1 6 ttf3+ �f5 1 7
1 7 ttg3 e3 1 8 Q.xe3 de 1 9 ttxe3 g4 <tld4 1 8 tte3 ttxc2 0-1 Hyde­
§e8 20 ttc5+ �g8 21 §fl g6 22 G rodzensky, corres 1 978) 9 ...
<tlxg6 hg 23 ttc4+ ± Lepeshkin. <tlxd4 10 �h5+ �f8 1 1 Q.g5 ttc5
16 .Q.e 1 �g8 ! 1 2 <tlc3 <tlxh5 1 3 ttxh5 Q.e6 1 4
1 7 ttd2 ttxf3+ <tlxd5 �xd 5 1 5 ed �g8 1 6 g3
1 8 ttg2 <tlxc2 + + Stuart-Wal ter, cor res
Worse is 1 8 �g1 in view o f 'l 8 ... 1 979.
<tld4 19 <tlc3 §f8 20 ttg2 ttxg2+ 8 �d4 (106)
21 �xg2 <tlxc2 22 §c 1 <tle3+!
with an advan tage for B l ack. Estrin . 706
18 ttd 1 w
1 9 ttd 2 ttf3+ =
The chances are even, as it does
not pay for either side to decline
the repetition of moves.
A12
6 '\t>f1 ttc7
7 �xh8 d 5 ! (1 05)

8 ... �g4! ? deserves consider­

ation. We exam ine th is continuatio n :
{a) 9 ..Q.e2 .Q.xe2+ and further:
{a1 ) 1 0 ttxe2 �d4 1 1 ttxf2 { 1 1
ttc4? ! b 5 ! + ) 1 1 . . . 0-0-0 and not­
withstand ing the large materi al
advantage, it is not easy for White
to defend, for example : 1 2 d3
(worse is 12 �a3 §f8 13 �e 1 �e4!
1 4 tte3 tth4+ 1 5 g3 �xg3 winning,
8 ed or 1 2 �e1 �e4 1 3 ttf7 tth4+ 1 4
Other continuations arc worse, �fl *&4 winning) 1 2 ... §f8 1 3
for example: �e 1 { 1 3 ..Q.g5 ? �g4! + + ) 1 3 ... �e4
(a) 8 ttf3 {if 8 d3, then 8 ... de 1 4 ttxf8+ { 1 4 ttg1 ? 'ith4+ 1 5 g3
108 Two Knight's Defence: 4fiJg5

ltg4 1 6 ltg2 �f2 wins) 1 4 ... ltxf8 cisco 1 964.

1 5 de fiJxc2 1 6 �e2 fiJxa 1 1 7 � f1
ltxh8 ! 1 8 �d3 (or 1 8 fiJa3 lte8
1 9 .Q.e3 lta4! 20 �d 3 lta6+ 2 1
fiJc4 b 5 + ) 1 8 . . . lte8 1 9 fiJc3 b5
+ Estrin.
(a2) 10 �xe 2 ! ? fiJxd4+ 1 1 �xf2
fiJe4+ ! ( 1 1 ... 0-0-0 1 2 �fl ltc5
1 3 c3 ! fiJe4+ 1 4 � e 1 ± ) 1 2 �e3
(worse is 1 2 �e 1 lth4+ 1 3 g3 fiJxg3
winning) or 1 2 �g1 ltc5 ! winning
Estrin) 1 2 ... ltg5+ 1 3 o3ixe4 ltxg2+
1 4 o&>d3 (but not 1 4 o&>xe 5 ? fiJf3+
1 5 o&>e4 0-0-0 with an unstoppable
attack for b l ack, Stuart-Augustat,
corres 1 972) 14 ... lth3+ 1 5 o&>e4
( 1 5 o&>c4? b5+ 1 6 o&>c5 0-0-0! + )
-t!tg2+ with perpetual check.
(d) 9 d3 Q.g4 1 0 itd2 .Q.e2+ 1 1
o&>xf2 �g4+ 1 2 o&>g1 ltc5 1 3 g3
�f3+ 1 4 o&>g2 *f2+ 1 5 o&>h3 h5
+ + Rosenbaum-Holz, San Francisco
1 959.
(e) 9 c3 .Q.g4 10 d6! transposes to
the m ain l i ne. Weaker is 1 0 lta4+?
because of 1 0 .. . fiJd 7 1 1 o&>x f2
(or 1 1 cd ltf6 1 2 de ltf4 ! ± ) 1 1 ...
lth4+ 1 2 o&>e3 ltg5+ 13 o&>f2 *f5+
1 4 o&>g1 0-0-0 1 5 cd �f8 + +
M i kiska-Traxler, corres 1 896.
(f) 9 h3 (107)
107 • •.�..• •• �
8 . i . �� • t

�
(b) 9 d6 ltf8 (if 9 ... '5'xd6, then . - - m
�� • ­
1 0 Q.e2 Q.xe2 1 1 '5'xe2 Q.b6 1 2 c3 ..
-
. ft �
-
. - ..
o&>e7 1 3 d3 �xh8 14 fiJd2 unclear - I\ at
U...W.. � u.• • -·
or 1 4 .Q.g5 unclear Estrin) 1 0 fiJe2
B. B •
. B ft
fiJd4 1 1 .Q.f3 e4 ! 1 2 o&>xf2 fiJxf3
with a strong attack for B l ack. ��
a u. ft � �
. ft �
B
Estri n.
9 d6
��lfJg�·-----�
We examine other continuations: (fl ) 9 ... .Q.g4? (Also insu fficient
(a) 9 o&>xf2 .Q.g4 10 ltfl fiJe4+ is 9 ... '5'f8 due to 1 0 d6! itxd6
1 1 o&>g1 fiJe2+ winning, B rancic­ 1 1 �f7 ±) 1 0 hg �e4 1 1 �c3 ± .
Marics, corres 1 963. {f2) 9 ... '5'c5 1 0 o&>xf2 �xc2+
(b) 9 �c3 .Q.g4 1 0 .Q.e2 �xe2 1 1 ( 1 0 . . �e4+ 1 1 "'e 1 ! lte 7 1 2
.

�xe2 ltf8 ! 1 2 c 3 �d7 with an '5'h5+ ± o r 1 1 ... �xc2+ 1 2 ltxc2

unstoppable attack for B l ack -
Sarkisian-Shakhtakhtinsky, USS R
1 966.
(c) 9 .Q.e2 ltf8 (Black also gets a
strong attack after 9 ... .Q.h4.) 1 0
d 3 (if 1 0 .Q.f3, then 1 0 . . .Q.g4!
. 66 and now by continuing 1 5 o&>f3 !
1 1 o&>xf2 �e4+ w ith decisive threats)
1 0 ... .Q.e3 1 1 .Q.xe3 �g4+ 1 2 o&>e 1
�xe3 1 3 '5'c 1 �xg2+ 1 4 o&>d 1
ltf2 1 5 �c3 �e3+ 1 6 o&>d2 �f3
m ate. Kaplan-Canomari, San Fran-
'5'f2+ 1 3 "'d 1 ltxg2 1 4 �f1 ± )
1 1 d 4 '5'xc4 ( 1 1 . . . �e4+ 1 2 o&>g 1 !
ed 1 3 lth5+ ± ) 1 2 fiJa3 �xa3 1 3
ba '5'xd5 1 4 de ltc5+ Estrin­
Ed nzel ins, World corres Ch 1 965/
White repulses the attack, leaving
him with an extra rook .
{f3) 9 ... �e4 1 0 fiJ c 3 ! �g3+ 1 1
"'xf2 '5'h4 1 2 o&>g1 fiJxh 1 1 3 *f1 !
±.

(f4) 9 ... ..11g 3 ! ? 1 0 c 3 �f5 ( 1 0 . . .
�g4 1 1 cd e4 1 2 \\>e2 ± o r 1 2
itb3 ± ) 1 1 ita4+ ( i f 1 1 d4, then
1 1 ... ..11 d 7 1 2 ite2 Q.h2! 1 3 \\>f2
�g3 1 4 ite1 �fe4+ + + Estrin-N u n ,
corres 1 965) 1 1 . . . ..11 d 7 1 2 Q. b 5
itc5 1 3 ..11 x d7+ �xd7 1 4 d4 (if
1 4 \\>e2, then 1 4 ... itxd5 1 5 §g1
e4 ! 1 6 d4 ed+ e.p. 17 §d1 ..11f2
wins K u rkin-Estri n, USSR 1 966)
1 4 . . . ed 1 5 itb4 itxd 5 and after a
later 0-0-0 Black has a strong
attack . Estrin .
(f5) 9 . .. ..11 h 4 ! ? 1 0 c 3 and fu rther:
(f5 1 ) 10 ... �e4 ! ? ( 1 0 ... itc5 ? 1 1
�a3 ! �f5 1 2 d4 ± ) 1 1 cd ed 1 2
..11 b 5+! (Worse is 1 2 d 3 �g3+ 1 3
\\>g1 �e2+ 1 4 \\>fl itf6+ winning or
1 2 \\>gl d3 1 3 b4 itf6 ! +) 1 2 ...
..11 d 7 1 3 ..11 x d7+ \\>xd 7 1 4 itg4+
\\>d6 1 5 ite6+ itxe6 1 6 de �g3+
1 7 \\>gl �e2+ 1 8 \\>fl �g3+ =
Gorkov-Sapundzhiev, corres 1 966.
1 8 ... d 3 does n 't work because of
19 �c3 § f8+ 20 �f7 \\>xe 7 21
�xe2 §xf7 22 �f4! ± Sapundzhiev.
(f52) 1 0 ... b 5 ! ? 1 1 cd be 1 2 de
(Nothing good comes from 1 2 ite2
..11 f5 1 3 itxe5 Q.d3+ 1 4 \\>gl �e4
1 5 g4 Q.g3 ! 1 6 itxe7 <17xe7) 1 2 ...
itxe5 1 3 �c3 ( I f 1 2 ite2 then 1 3
... �e4 + ) 1 3 ... ..11f5 1 4 d4 ..11 d 3+
( 1 4 ... cd? 1 5 ita4+ \\>f8 1 6 itxh4
± ) 1 5 \\>gl itxd4+ 1 6 \\>h2 ite5+
1 7 \\>gl and now Black can take
the perpetual check or try 1 7 ...
..11 g 3 ! ? 18 itd2 \\>f8 1 9 ite3 §e8
20 itxe5 axe5 21 .Q.d2 g5 with
compensation for the missing rook .
Sapundzhiev.
(f5 3) 10 ... �f5 ! 1 1 d4 ( 1 1 g4?
�xg4! 1 2 hg �e3+! 1 3 de itf6+
wins) 1 1 ... e4 (Also possible is
Two Knight's Defence: 4�g5 7 09
1 1 ... ..11d 7 1 2 g4 �d6! 1 3 ..11 e 2
0-0-0 1 4 §h2 �xd5 1 5 c4 �f4
1 6 ..11 xf4 itf6 1 7 \\>g 1 itxf4 1 8
itd2 ..11g 3 1 9 §g2 ed with good
cou n terpl ay for Black. Estrin­
J ezek, corres 1 964/66) 12 .Q.d2 e 3 !
Sapundzhiev ( less strong is 1 2 . . .
�g3+ 1 3 \\>gl e 3 1 4 .Q. e l �fe4
1 5 ..11 x g3 ..11 x g3 1 6 ith5+ g6 1 7
�xg6 .Q.f2+ = Brzozka-Witkowsk i ,
Poland C h 1 964) 1 3 .Q.e l ..11f2! 1 4
..11xf2 (bad i s 1 4 g4? e2!+ winning)
14 ... ef and despite being a rook
down, B l ack has the advantage,
for example: 1 5 itc l ( 1 5 "itd2?
�e4 ++) 1 5 ... �e4 16 g4 �eg3+
1 7 �xf2 �xh l + 1 8 "itxh l "ite3+
19 �g2 �h4+! 20 \\>fl "itc l +
winning.
9 cd (1 08)
7 08
w
Also possible is 9 ... "itxd 6 1 0
c 3 .Q.g4 1 1 "ita4+ and further:
(a) 1 1 ... b5 1 2 .Q.xb5 �xb5 1 3
"itxb5+ (worse is 1 3 \\>xf2? "itc5+!
14 �el 0-0-0 1 5 �f7 §d4! +)
1 3 ... c6 1 4 "itc4 ..11e6 1 5 "ite2
.Q.b6 1 6 �a3 .Q.g4 1 7 "itc4 ..11 e 6=.
(b) 1 1 ... �d7 1 2 \\>xf2 "itf6+
1 3 \tel ( 1 3 §gl .Q.e2! 1 4 h3 "itf1 +
1 5 �h2 "it f4+ ) 1 3 ... 0-0-0 1 4
=
a n ( 1 4 cd? ed + ) 1 4 ... "ith4+
1 10 Two Knight 's Defence: 4�5
1 5 l!f2 �b6 1 6 g3 tth3 1 7 cd
�xa4 1 8 �f7 l!xd4 1 9 d 3 unclear.
Radchenko.
10 c3 .Q.g4
1 1 tta4+ {709)
Bad is 1 1 cd ? .ll. x d1 1 2 �xf2
because of 1 2 ... �e4+ 1 3 �e 1
.Q.h5 + + Schmidt-Litze, corres
1 973/4.
11 �d7
We examine other conti nuations.
(a) 1 1 ... .Q.d7 1 2 ttb4 ( 1 2 ttd 1
.ll.g4 1 3 tta4+ ) 1 2 ... �e4 1 3
=
ttxb7 !!c8 ( 1 3 ... ttf6 ? 1 4 ttxa8+
�e7 1 5 cd ! ± ± ) 1 4 ttxe4 Q.f5 1 5
ttd5 .Q.e6 1 6 tte4 Q.f5 Estrin .
(b) l1 . .. �f8 1 2 cd e d ( 1 2 . . .
=
.ll.x d4? 1 3 �c3 ! ± ) 1 3 �xf2 �e4+
1 4 �g1 *h4 1 5 h3 (1 5 g3? *&6
++) 1 5 ... ttf2+ 1 6 �h2 ttg3+
1 7 �g1 Q.f3 1 8 Q.f1 �g5 Greben­
shikov-Grigoriev, corres 1 964 and
now 1 9 *d7! .Q.xg2 ( 1 9 ... l!e8?
20 *f5+ �g8 21 h4 .Q.xg2 22
*xg5 wins or 21 ... l!e1 22 l'tc8+
wins) 20 ttf5+ �e7 21 .Q.xg2 l!f8
22 ttxf8+ �xf8 23 �f1 =.
1 2 �f7
Worse are 1 2 �xf2? tth4+ 1 3
<&>f1 b 5 ! 1 4 .Q.xb5+ � 7 1 5 g3
.Q.h3+ 0-1 Tarakon-Naftali n , corres
1 97 1 and 1 2 cd .ll. x d4 1 3 �e1
ttf6 1 4 !! f1 tth4+ 1 5 g3 ttxh2
1 6 ttb3 l!c8 1 7 �a3 l!xc4 ! 1 8
ttd 3 �c5 wins.
12 ttf6
Also possible is 1 2 ... .Q.h4 (but
worse is 1 2 ... b5 1 3 tta3 ! �c2 1 4
�xd6+ <&>f8 1 5 �c8 ! ± or 1 2 ...
d5 13 �xf2 ttxf7+ 1 7 �e 1 de 1 5
cd ed 16 l!f1 ± , and also 1 2 ...
<&>f8 13 l!xf2 �c5 1 4 cd �xa4
1 5 §f1 ± Radchenko) 1 3 g3 ttf6+
1 4 �e1 ttf3 1 5 §f1 .ll. s g3 1 6 hg
ttxg3 1 7 §f2 �f3+ with a guaran­
teed d raw. Estri n.
1 3 �xd6+ ttxd6
1 4 �xf2 ttf6
1 5 �e 1
Bad is 1 5 �g1 0-0.0 ! 1 6 h3 §f8
1 7 h g (or 1 7 cd ttf2+ 1 8 �h2
.Q.xh 3 ! winning) 1 7 ... ttf2+ winning.
15 0-0-0
1 6 cd
1 6 §f1 doesn't work because of
16 ... tth4+ 1 7 g3 ttxh2 1 8 cd
ttxg3+ 1 9 §f2 ed ! 20 .Q.f7 tte5+
21 �1 .Q.h 3+ winning.
16 cd
1 7 .Q.e2! §e8
Also possible is 17 ... .Q.xe2
1 8 ttc2+ �b8 1 9 d3 §e8, which
leads to a transposi tion of moves.
1 9 l'tc2+ �b8
1 9 d3
Now by continuing 19 ... §xe2+
(a mistake is 1 9 ... tte5 ? 20 �f2 !
.Q.xe2 21 §e1 ttxh2 22 §xe2
§f8+ 23 �e 1 ttg 1 + 24 �d2 §f2
25 l'td 1 ± ± Radchen ko-Anokhin,
USS R 1 958) 20 ttxe2 .ll. x e2 21
�xe2 tte5+ 22 �f2 ttf5+ B l ack
gets a draw .
Thus the continuation 5 �xf7

leads to nothing but complicated
variations, in which B l ack has a
dangerous attack which is >ufficient
to reach a d raw .
A2
5 d4 (7 7 0)
7 70
a ·
5 d5!
The strongest conti nuation, re­
commended by Fine. We examine
other possibilities for B l ack.
(a) 5 ... ed? 6 �xf7 'fbe7 7 �xh8
'fJ/xe4+ 8 'fJ/e2 ± .
(b) 5 ... .Q.xd4 6 c3 .Q.b6 7 �xf7
'fJ!e 7 8 �xh8 .Q.xf2+ Porreca­
Bisguier, Zagreb 1 955 and now
9 �xf2 ± Keres.
(c) 5 ... �xd4 ! ? and further :
(c 1 ) 6 �xf7 ( 6 c 3 �e6 + ) 6 ..
'fJ/e7 7 �xh8 d 5 ! 8 lle2 (8 .Q.xd5
.Q.g4 is considered below, while
8 c3 .Q.g4! 9 f3 �xf3+ ! 10 gf
�xe4 ! allows B l ack to obtain a
very strong attack , as after 1 1
'fJ/e2? *h4+ 1 2 �d 1 �f2+ 1 3
�c2 .Q.f5+ 1 4 �b3 de 1 5 *xc4,
.Q.c2+ wins, and after 1 1 h4 0-0-0
1 2 fg de gives B l ack a tremendous
advantage) 8 ... de 9 .Q.e3 .Q.f5
1 0 c3 0-0-0 1 1 cd ed 1 2 .llg 5
.Q.b4+ and it is d ifficu l t for White
to defend, despite his great material
Two Knight 's Defence: 4�g5 1 1 1
advantage . M edn is-Santassierre,
USA 1 955.
(c2) 6 .Q.xf7+ �e7 7 �c4 §f8 8
�c3 h6 9 �f3 d6 with good
counterplay for Black. Gold stein­
Hakonyechny, USS R 1 961 .
6 .ll x d5
Worthy of consideration is 6 d e ! ?
(worse is 6 ed �d4 7 d6 0-0 + or
7 c3 .ll f5 with a good game for
B l ack) 6 ... de 7 'fJ/xd8+ �xd8 =.
6 �xd4
Possible is 6 ... ed (if 6 ... �xd5
7 de m6 8 *xd8+ �xd 8 :t) 7 �xf7
'fJ/e7 8 �xh8 �xd5 9 *h5+ �f8
1 0 *xd5 �b4 unclear.
7 .Q.xf7+
B l ack has a strong attack after
7 �xf7 (7 c3 �e6 + ) 7 ... *e7 8
�xh8 .llg 4, i .e. 9 f3 �xd5 1 0 fg
(if to ed, then 1 0 ... .Q.f5 + ) 1 0 . . .
*h4+ 1 1 g3 'fJ/h 3 1 2 c3 ( 1 2 an
*xh2 13 *d3 �b4 ++) 12 ...
*g2 1 3 cd *xh 1 + 14 �d2 'fbxe4 +
Vorobyev-Litvinov, Odessa 1 948.
7 �e7
8 .Q.c4 b5
9 .Q.d3 §f8
1 0 .lle 3 h6
1 1 �f3 .llg4
1 2 �bd2 *d6
B l ack has sufficient compensation
for the sacrificed pawn . Zinn-Nun,
Corres O L 1 965/67.
A3
5 .Q.xf7+
In thi s line White does not obtain
a great material advantage, as he
does with 5 �xf7, but he deprives
B l ack of the dangerous attack on
the White k ing. The majority
of theoreticians ( Keres, G l igori c ,
Estrin) consider 5 llxf7+ to b e the
 7 72 Two Knight's Defence: 4�g5
best response to the bold counte r­
attack pro posed by Traxler. We
agree with th is opin ion .
5 <lie7 (7 1 7}
Worse is 5 ... <lif8 6 .Q.b3! d5
7 ed �d4 8 �e6+ .ll x e6 9 de �xb3
1 0 ab Q.xf2+ 1 1 <lixf2 �e4+ 1 2
<tiel ith4+ 1 3 g3 �xg3 1 4 itf3+
�f5+ 1 5 <lid 1 g6 16 § a4 ! ±
Schmidt-Zitzold, corres 1 968.
A3 1 6 ..Q.b3
A32 6 ..Q.d5
Other continuations are less
promising for White , i .e . :
(a) 6 d 4 �xd4 7 c3 �c6 8 Q.b3
§f8 9 ..Q.e3 ..Q.xe3 1 0 fe d 6 l l �d2
Pao l i - Rossolimo, Trencianske
Tep l i ce 1 949.
(b) 6 b4 Q.xf2+ ! 7 <lixf2 h6 8 ..Q.c4
hg 9 d 3 g4 1 0 c3 d6 1 1 ..Q.e3
ite8 1 2 �d2 itg6 1 3 �fl g3+!
1 4 <ligl �g4 = Sch midt- E strin,
corres 1 9 7 1 /2.
A3 1
6 ..Q.b3 § f8
I f 6 ... d6, then after 7 �c3
White can transpose to the main
l i ne or continue 8 d4 �xd4 9
�xh8? �xb3 1 0 cb .Q.xf2+! 1 1 <lif1
..Q.g4 1 2 itc2 �xe4 1 3 ..Q.g5+ <lid7
1 4 itc4 .Q.d4+ winning, Szilagyi-
Schmidt, corres 1 969) �d4 (8 . . .
§g8 ! ? 9 0-0 h6 unclear dese rves
consideration , analysis) 9 � x h 8
�xb3 1 0 cb .Q.x f2+ 1 1 <lid2 .Q.g4
1 2 it fl ± Patz- Liuk, cor rcs 1 9 1 1 /
73.
7 0-0
7 d3 is also not had :
(a) 7 ... d 6 8 .Q.e3 ! ..Q.g4 (if 8 . . .
..Q.xe3 9 fe �g4, then 1 0 �f3 �xc3
1 1 itd2 �g4 1 2 �c3 and 0-0-0 ± )
9 itd 2 h 6 1 0 llxc5 de 1 1 h 3 .Q.d7
1 2 � f3 iteS 1 3 �c3 <lid8 T rap i ­
N u n , Czechoslovakia C h 1 962, and
after 1 4 0-0-0 B l ack does not have
su ffic i e n t com ren s a t ion for t h e
m issing pawn. Euwe.
(b) 7 ... h6 ! ? 8 �f3 d 6 9 ..Q.e3 ? !
(9 h 3 ! Estrin) 9 ... ..Q.g4 1 0 ..Q.xc5
de 1 1 �bd2 �g4 1 2 h3 ..Q.h5 1 3
g4? � xg4! 1 4 �xd4 ( 1 4 hg �xf3+
1 5 �xf3 .Q.xg4 + + ) 14 ... itxd4
0- 1 , Pao l i -Steiner, Reggio E m i l i a
1 95 1 .
7 h6
B l ack has serious troub les in the
event of 7 . . . d6 8 �c3 ite8 9
�d5+ <lidS 1 0 c3! (Clearly weaker
is 1 0 �xf6 gf 1 1 �f3 ith5 1 2 d4
..Q.g4! where it is B l ack who has the
initiative. K l ovan -Anhjan, USS R
1 960) 1 0 ... h6 (or 1 0 ... itg6 1 1
d4 ed 1 2 �f4 ! ) 1 1 d4 ed ( 1 1 . . .
..Q.b6 1 2 �xb6 a b 1 3 f4 ± ) 1 2 e 5 !
with advantage to Wh ite , for
example 1 2 ... �xd5 1 3 ..Q.xd5 de
( 1 3 . . . itxe5 1 4 �f7+ ± or 1 3 . . .
h g 1 4 ..Q.xg5 �e7 1 5 cd ± ) 1 4 �e4
.Q.b6 1 5 cd �xd4 1 6 ..Q.e3 c6 1 7
..Q.c4 itg6 1 8 �g3 <tic7 1 9 ..Q.d3
itg4 20 f3 ith4 21 <lih l ..Q.d7 22
a4 aS 23 §bl §adS 24 b4 ±
Porreca-Barle, corres 1 968/69.
 8 {)f3 d6 The most logical continuation.
9 h3 'i!k8 I f 7 {)f3 :
I f 9 . . . {)xc4? then 1 0 c 3 ! .ll x h3 (a) 7 ... d 6 8 c3 ite8 (8 . . . .ll g4
1 1 d4! "lt d 7 ( 1 1 . .. cd 1 2 cd .ll b 6 9 l1xc6 be 1 0 d4 l1b6 (9 . . . ed
13 gh ±) {)h41 ± . 1 0 cd l1b4+ 1 1 {)c3 {)xd5 1 2 ed
1 0 {)c3 ith S �f7+ 1 3 .ll e 3 {)e7 1 4 itb3 l1a5
1 1 {)h2! ith4 1 5 0-0 ± E lpid insky-Shkurovich­
12 d3 t Hasin , corres 1 969) 1 0 l1e3 l1g4
White has consolidated his k ing­ 1 1 itd 3 l1xf3 1 2 gf ithS 1 3 l1xc6
side, maintaining the extra pawn. itxf3 1 4 §g1 be 1 5 {)d2 ithS 1 6
Estrin . § xg7+ ± M ueller-Schmidt, corres
A32 1 975/76.
(b) 7 ... {)d4 (7 ... {)xd5 can lead
to a transposition of moves by
8 ed {)d4) 8 {)xd4 (after 8 {)xeS
{)xd5 9 ed d o B l ac k ha� d angerous
threats .) 8 . . . .ll x d4 9 0-0 {)xd5 1 0
ed �7 1 1 c3 .ll c 5 1 2 d 3 �g8 1 3
� d 2 t j ovcic-Sapundzhiev, corres
1 969 .
(c) 7 ... ite8 8 c3 (less exact is 8
0-0 d6 9 c3 .llg4 1 0 .llx c6 be 1 1
h3 ithS ! with an attac k . Petrov­
Gari n , corres 1 974) 8 ... ith S
9 0.{) (9 d4 ed 1 0 .ll x c6 be! u nclear)
6 § f8 9 . . . d6 1 0 d4 .Q.b6 1 1 itd3 t )
Other continuations arc weaker, 7 d6
for exam pie : (a) 7 ... h6 8 {)f3 d6 9 h 3 ! ite8
(a) 6 ... {)xd5? (Unacceptable is 1 0 c3 ithS 1 1 d4 .ll b6 ( Bad is 1 1
6 ... h6? 7 {) f7 it f8 8 {)xh8 ± ± . . . .ll x h3? d ue to 1 2 gh {)xd 5 1 3
or 6 ... it f8 7 0-0 ± ) 7 c d {)b4 8 {)h2 ± ) 1 2 l1xc6 be 1 3 {)bd2 ±
d4 ! ed 9 {)e4 ite8 1 0 0-0! .llb 6 Westerinen.
1 1 §e1 winni ng. (b) 7 ... ite8 8 c3 itg6 (8 ... d6 9
(b) 6 ... {)b4 7 d4! ed 8 0-0 {)bxd5 d4 ed 1 0 l1xc6 be 1 1 cd ± ) 9 d4
9 ed §e8 1 0 itd3 ! h6 1 1 itg6 ! hg .ll b 6 1 0 {) f3 d6 1 1 {)h4 ± Estrin .
12 itxg7+ �d 6 1 3 l1xg5 § f8 1 4 8 h3
c4 d e 1 5 {)xc3 1 -0 Estrin-Weis, O r 8 .ll x c6 (8 d 3 i s passive :
corres 1 97 1 /72. 8 ... .llg 4 9 itd2 h6 1 0 h 3 .l1d7
(c) 6 ... d6 7 c3! §f8 8 d4 ed 9 1 1 {) f3 ite8 1 2 l1xc6 be 1 3 b4
.ll x c6 bc 1 0 0-0 ! dc ( 1 0 ... h6 1 1 .l1b6 1 4 {)c3 {)h5 ! and Black has
cd .ll b 6 1 2 e 5 ! ± Estrin) 1 1 ite2 ! the initiative. Bri.i nnenberg-N ise,
with a clear advan tage. corres 1 963/64) 8 ... be 9 h3 h 6
7 0-0 1 0 {)f3 ite8 1 1 d4 ed 1 2 e5 {)e4 !
1 14 Two Knight's Defence: 4?:Jg5

1 3 ed+ cd 1 4 ?:Jxd4 �xh3 ! 1 5 �h2 The Traxler Counterattack is

?:Jbd7 ! 1 6 .Q.e3 .Q.xd4 1 7 'ttx d4 one of the most interesting areas
�f5 1 8 §d 1 'tth 5+ 1 9 �g1 §f6 = of opening theory, and its popul arity
Burkhardt-Nels, corres 1 965/66. is growing.
8 'tte 8 B
9 c3 'ttg6 4 d5
1 0 d4 Q.b6! {7 73) 5 ed (1 14)
Weaker is 1 0 ... ed because of
1 1 .Q.xc6 be 1 2 cd .Q.b6 1 3 e5 ±
Walter-Reithel l , corrcs 1 970/71 .
1 14 EB.I.IIfi'rl B�:
8 .t�
� •t•
. -t
-� -� . � •t
� -
• .a.
· ..!..!.. - �-
B..Q... B Bi
.a.
.. . . .
� .a. a �J
JJ.. � ..u.. �
.a. �
u ..u. �
!
9�-
�i=� n-�
�"Z-1- ��� "• �
- C?-
B 1 5 ... ?:Jd4
B2 5 ... ?:laS
Unacceptable arc the moves 5 . . .
Creating a critical position with ?:JxdS? and 5 . . . Q.g4?, b u t 5 ... bS ! ?
equal chances. Possible continu­ deserves attention :
ations are : (a) 5 . . . ?:Jxd 5 ? 6 d4! (The Fried
(a) 1 1 �e3 ( I n the event of 1 1 ?:Ja3 Liver Attack 6 ?:Jxf7 ! ? is not so
or 1 1 'tte 2 Black shou ld continue clear, viz. 6 ... �xf7 7 'tt f3+ �c6
1 1 ... ?:J h 5 ! fol l owed by ?:Jf4) 8 ?:Jc3 ?:Jb4 9 'ttc4 c6 1 0 a3 ?:Ja6
1 1 ... ?:Jh5 1 2 �h2 ?:Jf4 1 3 Q.xf4 1 1 d4 ?:Jc7 1 2 .Q.f4 �f7 1 3 Q.xeS
§xf4 14 ?:Jf3 'tt h 5 with good �e6 1 4 0-0 .Q.e7 oo or 9 a3 ?:Jxc2t
chances for Black. Estrin-Nun, 1 0 �d 1 ?:Jd4 ! 1 1 .Q.xdS+ �d6 1 2
corres 1 973/75 . itf7 'tte 7 1 3 ?:Je4+ �d 7 1 4 ?:JcS+
( b ) 1 1 f4 ef 1 2 �xf4 ?:JfS ! (weaker �d 6 1 5 ?:Jxb7+ �xb7 16 'ttx e7+
is 1 2 ... ?:JxdS?! 1 3 ed §xf4 1 4 �xe7 1 7 Q.xb 7 §b8 1 8 �e4 ?:Jb3
§xf4 'ttxgS 1 5 §e4+ ?:Je5 1 6 :l:) 6 . .. �b4+ (if 6 . . . ed 7 0-0
�h 1 �fS 1 7 §e2! §f8 1 8 de Q.g4 White gains the advantage afte r
1 9 ed+ �xd6 20 ?:Jd2 ! �xe2 21 either 7 ... ed 8 ?:Jxf7 �xf7 9
'ttx e2 ± Serensen) 1 3 .Q.e3 §xf1 'tth S+ g6 1 0 �xdS+ �e8 1 1 'tt f3
1 4 'ttx f1 �d 7 oo Tim man-Lehmann , §f8 1 2 �xc6 be 1 3 'ttx c6+ �d 7
corres 1 980. 1 4 'ttc 4 ± or 7 ... .Q.e6 8 §e1 "ttd 7
Finishing our examination of 9 ?:Jxf7 �xf7 1 0 'tt f3+ �g8 1 1
the Traxler Counterattack, we can §xe6 §dB 1 2 .Q.gS 'tte6 1 3 .Q.xd8
conclude that it is vi able. 'tte 1 + 1 4 Q.f1 ±) 1 1 0-0 ?:Je7 12 f4
 Two Knight 's Defence: 4.£Jg5 1 15

c6 1 3 fe ± Barden-Adams, Hastings Keres) 8 d4 f6 ( i f 8 ... ed then

1 9S 1 /2. 9 0-0 ! Ae7 1 0 .£lf3 0-0 1 1 .Q.xc6
(b) S ... llg4? 6 .£1xf7! 'fhe7 (6 ... .Q.xc6 1 2 <£ld4 ± ) 9 0-0 (9 .£lf3 e4
Axd 1 ? 7 <£lxd8 .£ld4 8 �xd 1 .£lg4 oo) 9 . . . 'fbd 7 ( 9 . . . fg 1 0 c4 a6
9 §f1 -nxh2 1 0 .£le6 ! <£lxe6 1 ·1 §e 1 1 1 cd 'fhxdS 1 2 .£lc3 *xd4 1 3 Q.a4
wins) 7 d6 cd 8 f3 §g8 9 .£lxd6+ 'fhxd 1 1 4 §xd 1 ± J anowski) 1 0 c4
'fhxd6 1 0 fg §h8 1 1 d3 'fbcS 1 2 .£lb6 1 1 d5 gf 1 2 de Axc6 1 3
'fbgS ± Estrin. AhS+ ± .
(c) S ... bS ! ? ( U ivestad Variation) 8 1
and further : 5 .£ld4
(c1 ) 6 d e b e 7 'fhe2 'fbd S (also good The F ritz Variation.
is 7 ... h6 8 'fbxcS+ Ae7 9 .£lf3 0-0 6 c3
1 0 0-0 Q.g4 1 1 'fb f4 Ad6 + ) 8 f4 We look at the alternatives :
h6 9 *xeS+ *xeS 1 0 fe hg ·1 1 ef (a) 6 d6 'fhxd6 7 Axf7+ (7 .£1xf7?
gf 1 2 .£lc3 Ad6 +) 8 f4 h6 9 'fbc6! + ) 7 ... �e7 8 .Q.b3 <£lxb3
*xeS+ 1 0 fe hg 1 1 ef gf 1 2 .£lc3 9 ab h6 1 0 .£lf3 e4 1 1 .£lg1 �f7 +
Ad6 + M ieses-Steiner, Hastings Bogo ljubow-Rubinstein , Stockholm
1 94S/46. 1 9 1 9.
(c2) 6 AxbS 'fhxdS 7 .£lc3 (danger­ (b) 6 .£lc3 (insufficient is 6 0-0 b5 !
ous is 7 Axc6+ 'fbxc6 8 'fhf3 e4 9 7 Q.b3 h6 8 .£lf3 .Q.g4 + or 6 d3 b5
'fbb 3 Q.cS ! 1 0 'fbxf7+ �d8 and 7 .Q.b3 .£lxb3 8 ab 'fhxd5 +) 6 ... h6
Black has a very strong attack, i .e . : 7 .£lf3 (7 .£lge4? <£lxe4 8 .£lxe4
1 1 0-0 h6 ! ? 1 2 'fhxg7 §g8 1 3 'fhh4 9 d3 Ag4 1 0 'fhd 2 Q.f3 +) 7 ...
'fhxh6 Ab7 1 4 �h 1 e3 1 S f3 e2 .Q.g4 8 Ae2 .Q.xf3 9 Axf3 Q.b4 1 0
1 6 §e1 .£le4! Bard i-Kenes, corres 0-0 0-0 1 1 §e 1 §e8 1 2 a3 .Q.xc3
1 978 , but possi ble is 7 Q.e2 Ab7 8 1 3 de .£lxf3+ 1 4 'fhxf3 'fhxd 5 =.

d3 .£ld4 9 f3 ! unclear - Euwe) 6 b5

7 ... *xg2 8 'fb f3 'fhxf3 9 .£lxf3 If 6 ... .£lf5 , then 7 d4! ed 8 0-0
Ad 7 1 0 0-0 Q.d 6 1 1 Q.xc6 Q.xc6 with better play for White, for
12 .£!xeS Q.xeS 1 3 §e1 0-0-0 1 4 example : 8 . . . .£ld6 9 Ab3 de 1 0
§xeS = Tumurbato r-Hemmassi , §e 1 + .Q.e7 1 1 lte2! h 6 1 2 .£Jf3 cb
Singapore 1 969. 1 3 Axb2 ± or 8 ... Ad6 9 §e1 +
(c3) 6 M1 ! .£lxdS ( Besides the .£le7 1 0 cd 0-0 1 1 .£lc3 Af5 1 2 f3
strongest continuation 6 . . . .£ld4! ± Kopylov-Lisitsi n , USS R 1 949.
7 c3 , which is examined in B 1 7 Af1 !
(The Fr itz Variation ) , 6 ... h 6 ! ? White gains noth ing by 7 cd be
deserves attention : 7 .£Jf3 'fhxd 5 8 de (or 8 lta4+ 'fbd7 9 ltxc4
8 .£1c3 'fbe6 9 Q.xb5 Ab7 1 0 d 3 ltxd5 1 0 'fhxd 5 .£lxd5 1 1 de <£lb4!
where Black has some compen­ with a good game for Black) 8 ...
sation for the sacri ficed pawn. ltxd 5 ! 9 .£lf3 .£l d 7 1 0 0-0 .Q.b7
Keres) 7 Axb5 Q.b 7 (Against 7 ... 1 1 d4 .cd 1 2 .£lc3 ltc6 1 3 §e1
Ad7 8 d4 cd 9 0-0 is good, and 0-0-0 14 'fhxd3 .£lc5 Keres. =

then not 9 ... Ae7 1 0 <£lxf7! ± 7 {)xd5 (1 15)

7 16 Two Knight's Defence: 4li:Jg5
If 7 ... h6, then 8 cd hg 9 de
li:Jxd5 10 bb5+ �d7 1 1 "tta4 ( 1 1
_g_xd7 "ttx d7 1 2 li:Jc3 li:Jf4 1 3 d4
li:Jxg2+ 14 <37fl li:Jf4 1 5 �xf4 gf 1 6
"tt f3 §b8 oo or 1 4 ... "tt h 3 m) 1 1 ...
li:Jb4 12 _g_xd7+ "ttx d7 1 3 "ttxd 7+
<37xd 7 1 4 li:Ja3 §h4 1 5 d4 li:Jd3+
16 <37e2 li:Jxc 1 + 17 §axe 1 Q.xa3 1 8
ba §xd4 1 9 §c5 ;!; ,
7 15
w (c1 ) 9 _g_xb5+ <37d8 1 0 "tt f3 and
8 li:Je4
Black also has an acceptable
game after other continuations,
for example:
(a) 8 h4 h6 9 cd (in case of 9 li:Je4
li:Je6 we reach a position from the
main l ine with the added moves h4
and h6, which only serve Black)
9 ... hg 1 0 Q.xb5+ _g_d7 1 1 "tte 2
_g_xb5 1 2 "ttx b5+ "ttd 7 1 3 "ttx d7+
<37xd7 1 4 de Essegern-Daniel, D D R
1 969 and now 1 4 ... li:J b 4 ! gives
Bl ack a good game, accord ing to
Keres.
{b) 8 li:Jxf7 <37xf7 9 cd li:Jf4 ! ? (9
... ed ! ? is not bad either, after
which White must play not 1 0
"ttf 3+? li:Jf6 ! 1 1 "ttx a8 Q.c5 with a
very strong attack for Black.
Semenen k0-Perfi l iev, USS R 1 947,
but rather 1 0 Q.xb5 , although even
here Black has sufficient compen-
sation for the sacrificed pawn after
1 0 ... "tte 7+ 1 1 '<'te2 "ttx e2+ 1 2
_g_xe2 li:Jb4. Suetin-Ravinsky, USS R
1 949) 1 0 de li:Jd3+ 1 1 �xd3
"ttx d3 1 2 "ttb 3+ ( 1 2 li:Jc3 ba 1 3
"lte2 ! ? Keres) 1 2 ... "ttx b3 1 3 ab
Q.c5 1 4 d3 §e8 and Black's initiat·
ive is sufficient to reach equality.
Rantanen-Lombardy, Tal l inn 1 975.
(c) 8 cd (Fischer) 8 ... �xg5 and
further:
now:
(c 1 a) 1 0 ... _g_e7 1 1 0-0 §b8 ( 1 1
-·· e4! ? 1 2 "ttxe4 _g_d6 unclear
deserves consideration) 12 li:Jc3 !
(weaker is 1 2 "ttxf7 _g_e7 + or 1 2 d 3
itg6 + ) 1 2 ... li:Jxc3 (worse is 1 2 .. .
li:Je3 1 3 d5 li:Jxf1 1 4 d4 ± or 1 2 .. .
ed 1 3 li:Je4 "tte 5 1 4 "ttxf7 c6 1 5
d 3 cb 1 6 _g_g5+ where White h as a
very strong attack . Paoli) 1 3 de
_g_xf3 14 _g_xg5+ f6 1 5 fg Porreca­
Conted ini, I taly 1 964 and now
Black should continue 1 5 ... §xb5 !
1 6 .Q.c 1 ed 1 7 § d 1 Q.d6 1 8 !!xd4
§e8 with sufficient compensation
for the missing pawn - E strin .
(c 1 b) 1 0 . . . ed ! ? 1 1 .Q.c6 li:Jb4!
(Berliner gives 1 1 ... li:Jf6 ! ! , with
comp licated p l ay, e.g. 1 2 Q.xa8
.Q.g4 1 3 "ttg 3 �d6 1 4 f4 §e8+
1 5 <37fl li:Jh5 ! ! 1 6 "tt f2 li:Jf4 + or
1 3 -ttd 3 "tte 5+ 14 <37f1 _g_c5 15 g3 !
.Q.h3+ 1 6 .Q.g2 Q.f5! 1 7 "tte 2 "ttx e2+
1 8 li:Jxe2 §e8+ 1 9 �d 1 li:Jg4 + , but
Schiller improves on this with 1 2
0-0! §b8 - 1 2 ... .Q.g4 1 3 "tt b 3! -
1 3 d 3 · itc5 1 4 b4! ? itxb4 1 5 �d2!
itb6 1 6 Q.g5 ; so 1 1 li:Jf6 is not as
clear as previously thought.) 1 2
.Q.xa8 li:Jc2+ 1 3 <37d 1 ! ? ( 1 3 <M1
.Q.a6+ 1 4 <37g1 li:Jxa 1 + ) 1 3 ... .Q.g4

1 4 <;\oxc2 ( 1 4 ttxg4 ttxg4+ 1 5 <;\oxc2
ttg6+ 1 6 <;td 1 c6 + + ) 1 4 ... ..Q.xf3
1 5 ..Q.xf3 «reS+ 1 6 <;td 1 d3 1 7 <tlc3
ttxf2 + Rothman-Schi l l er, New
York 1 981 .
(c2) 9 <tlc3 ! ed 1 0 ..Q.xb5+ ..Q.d7
1 1 �xd7+ <;\oxd7 1 2 0-0! <tlf4 1 3
g3 <tlh3+ 1 4 <;tg2 <tlf4+ 1 5 <;\oh 1
de 1 6 tta4+ c6 1 7 gf ttd5+ 1 8
<;tog 1 cb 1 9 .Q.xb 2 �c5 20 §ae8
f6 van der Wiel-Timman, Amster­
= 2 1 ... ttxg3+ 22 h g cb + - Berliner.
dam 1 980.
8 <tle6
The American theoretician H .
Berliner has added new life to the
variation 8 ... tth4 9 <tlg3 ..Q.g4 1 0
f3 d4! 1 1 cd ..Q.d6 1 2 ..Q.xb5+ <;td8.
The much discussed game Estrin­
Berliner corres 1 967 continued :
1 3 0-0! ef 1 4 §xf3 §b8 ! 1 5 �e2?
.Q.xf3 1 6 ..Q.xf3 ttxd4+ 1 7 <;th 1
�xg3 1 8 hg §b6 + . Better is 1 5
a4! a6 ! 1 6 ..Q.fl §c8 1 7 <tlc3 c6
1 8 d3 f5 ! 1 9 .Q.c2 ..Q.xf3 20 �xf3
<tle3 = Berliner. An alternative for
White is 1 4 ttb3, but here too
Black has a powerfu l response :
1 4 ... <tlb4! ! ( 1 4 ... <tlf4? 1 5 §xf3
§b8 1 6 §xf4 §xb5 1 7 ttxb5
..Q.xf4 18 ttd5+ ..Q.d 7 19 <;tf1 ± ±
Estrin-N ielsen, corres 1 973, or 1 4
... fg? 1 5 §f2 ..Q.e6 1 6 ttf3 §b8
1 7 ..Q.c4 ttxd4 1 8 d3! ± Estrin .)
and now:
(a) 15 a3 §b8! 1 6 ab ( 1 6 ..Q.c4
..Q.xg3 1 7 hg ttxg3 1 8 §f2 ! §e8
1 9 ab § e 1 + 20 ..Q.f1 §xf1 + ! 21
<;\oxfl fg+ winning - Berliner.
(b) 15 ttxf7 §b8 1 6 <tlc3 fg! 1 7
<;txg2 ! tth3+! 1 8 <;tog 1 �xg3 1 9 hg
ttxg3+ 20 <;th 1 §b6 21 d3 §g6 !
+ + - Berliner.
(c) 1 5 §xf3 ! c6 ! ! 1 6 a3 ( 1 6 ..Q.xc6
Two Knight 's Defence: 4lf)g5 117
<tlxc6 1 7 ttb 7 .Q.xf3 1 8 gf ..Q.xg3
1 9 ttxa7+ <;tc7 + + or 1 6 �f1 ..Q.xf3
1 7 ttxf3 ttxd4+ 1 8 <;\oh 1 �xg3
1 9 hg <tlc2 +) 1 6 ... .Q.xf3 1 7 ttxf3
§e8 1 8 <tlc3 ( 1 8 ab §e1 + 1 9 <&>£2
§xc1 + ) 1 8 . . . § e 1 + 1 9 <&>£2 ( 1 9
..Q.fl ttxd4+ 20 <;th 1 <tld3 2 1 <tlce4
..Q.cS ! 22 <tle2 §xe2 + + or 20 ttf2
..Q.c5 + + ) 1 9 ... <tlc2 ! 20 <tle2!
..Q.xg3+! 21 ttxg3 (21 hg tth 1 )
9 ..Q.xb5+ ..Q.d7
1 0 �xd7+
Or 1 0 tta4 <tlfd4 1 1 d4 <tlxg2+
1 2 <;tf1 <tlgf4 1 3 ..Q.xd7+ ttxd7
1 4 ttxd7+ <;txd7 1 5 de <tld3
Kopylov-Ravinsky, USS R 1 949.
10 ttxd7
1 1 0-0 f5 !
On 1 1 ... �e7, 1 2 d4 ed 1 3 ed :t
and White maintains a minimal
edge.
1 2 <tlg3 g6
1 3 d4 ed
14 cd �g7
1 5 <tle2 §d8=
Black has strong p ressu re for the
sacrificed p awn, sufficient for level
chances. Estrin-Muir, corres 1 977I
80 .
We can conclude that the
variation 5 ... <tld4 gives B l ack an
acceptable game.
82
5 <tlaS (1 7 6}
The classical system of counter­
attack for B l ack.
6 ..Q.b5+
Black has a good game after 6 d 3
h 6 7 <tlf3 e4 8 tte2 (worse i s 8
..Q.bS+ c6 9 de cb 1 0 ttd3 a6 1 1
0-0 ..Q.c5 1 2 c3 ..Q.a7 1 3 b3 0-0 +
Pronchatov-Nekrasov, USS R 1 964
1 18 Two Knight's Defence: 4!ilg5

1 16 1 8 �d4 I:ld8 19 b4 c 5 ! + Haftalin­

w Friedman, corres 1 971 ) 15 ... �g3
1 6 l'tf3 �xf1 1 7 �xf1 l'tb6 1 8 be
be + Kondratiev.
6 c6
Also possible is 6 ... .Q.d7 7 l'te2
.Q.e7 (after 7 ... 11d6 8 �c3 0-0
9 .Q.xd7 l'txd 7 1 0 0-0 White 's
chances are preferable) 8 �c3
(Dangerous is 8 d4? ! ed 9 b4
because of 9 ... 0-0! 1 0 ba Q.b4+
1 1 *d 1 I:le8 with a strong attack
�fxe4! 1 1 �xe4 l'te7 1 2 0-0 �xe4 for B l ack) 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 (Weaker
1 3 I:le1 f5 1 4 �d2 l'tc5 ! + Euwe) is 9 �ge4? ! �xe4 10 �xe4 11f5 !
8 ... �xc4 9 de .Q.c5, for example: + Tylevich-Borisenko, USSR 1 957)
(a) .1 0 c3 (if 10 0-0? ! , then 10 ...
9 ... c6! ? (Th is is better than 9 ...
0-0 1 1 �fd2 .Q.g4 12 l'te1 l'td7 .Q.xb5 10 l'txb5 c6 1 1 de be 1 2
1 3 �b3 .Q.f3 ! with a very strong l'te2 �d5 1 3 �f3 .Q.d6 14 d 3 :!:
attack for Black, Feld-Tenner, USA Byelov-Kopylov, USS R 1 966) 1 0
1 934) 10 ... b5 1 1 b4 Q.e7 1 2 d e �xc6 with an active position
�fd2 .Q.g4 1 3 f3 ef 1 4 gf �h5 1 5 for the pawn.
cb 0-0 1 6 0-0 I:le8 + Grab-Keres, 7 de be (1 1 7}
Dresden 1 936.
(b) 10 .Q.f4 0-0 1 1 �fd2 .Q.g4 1 2
l'tfl c6 1 3 �c3 I:le8 1 4 �b3 .Q.b4
1 5 h3 .Q.h5 1 6 g4 Q.g6 1 7 0-0-0
.Q.xc3 1 8 be l'tb6 1 9 de l'txc6 20
§d6 l'ta4 + Ferberov-Sheremeta,
USSR 1 962.
(c) 10 �fd2 0-0 1 1 �b3 Q.g4 1 2
l'tfl .Q.b4+! 1 3 c3 ( 1 3 �c3 ? ! 1 4
h3 .Q.h5 1 5 g4 .Q.g6 1 6 de be +
Lu kic-Keres, Buenos Ai res 1 939)
1 3 ... .Q.e7 1 4 h3 .Q.h5 1 5 11e3
�d7 1 6 g4 11g6 1 7 � 1 d2 �e5 8 .Q.e2
1 8 0-0-0 b5 19 cb �d3+ 20 *b1 We consider the alternatives:
l'txd5 (20 ... a6! ? + ) 2 1 *a1 l'txb5 (a) 8 .Q.a4 h6 9 �f3 e4 1 0 l'te2
+ Salve-M arshall, Vienna 1 908. ( 1 0 �e5? l'td4 wins) 1 0 . . . .Q.e6
(d) 10 h3 0-0 1 1 �h2 ( 1 1 �fd2? 1 1 �e5 l'td 4! 1 2 .Q.xc6+ �xc6 1 3
e3! 12 fe .Q.xe3 1 3 *d 1 I:le8 1 4 l'tb5 .Q.c5 ! 1 4 l'txc6+ *e 7 1 5
l'tf3 c6! + ) 1 1 ... c6! 1 2 dc e3 1 3 l'tb7+ *d6 ! + .
.Q.xe3 .Q.xe3 1 4 fe �e4 1 5 0-0 ( 1 5 (b) 8 .Q.fl h6 9 �h3 .Q.c5 1 0 d 3
I:lgl ? be 1 6 �f3 l'tf6 1 7 c3 I:lb8 l'tb6 1 1 l'te2 .Q.g4 1 2 f 3 11xh3
 t wo K mgnn uerence: 4r.Jg:> I I '::I

1 3 gh 0-0-0 + Stci nitz-Chigori n , �xg4 1 5 h3 ± ± .

Havana 1 892.
(c) 8 �d3 �d5 9 �e4 f5 1 0 �g3
�f4 1 1 .ll f l .11c 5 1 2 c3 .11 b 6 1 3 d4
�g6 1 4 �d3 0-0 1 5 b4 �b7 +
Castaldi-Keres, Stockholm 1 937.
(d) 8 itf3 §b8! 9 �d3 (dangerous
is 9 .11 x c6+ �xc6 1 0 itxc6+ �d7
1 1 d 3 .11e 7 with a strong attack
for B l ack) 9 ... h6 1 0 �e4 �d5
with fu ll compensation for the
sacrificed pawn, for example :
(d 1 ) 1 1 b3 g6 1 2 itg3 �g7 1 3 .Q.a3
�b4 1 4 <!>e2 0-0 1 5 c3 �g4+!
van der Wici-Torre, Sochi 1 980.
(d2) 1 1 �g3 g6 1 2 b3 h5 1 3 0-0
�g7 1 4 �a3 · Q.g4 1 5 ite4 f5 1 6
ite1 h4 + Honfi-Zagorovsky, corres
1 961 /63.
8 h6
9 �f3
We also consider Stei nitz ' 9
�h3 ! ? (1 18)
a -...��.
1 18 �r .. . ....
�- -�� -�'* -•
B�
- � � - B - i �
(c) 9 . . . �e6 1 0 d 3 g5 1 1 �c3
�e 7 1 2 �e4 c5 1 3 �xf6+ �xf6
1 4 �g4 ± Bednarski-Adamski,
Pol and 1 964.
(d) 9 ... g5 1 0 d3 g4 1 1 �g1 �c5
1 2 �c3 �b7 ( 1 2 ... itd6 1 4 �a4 ;l; )
1 3 .11e 3 .11x e3 1 4 fe itb6 1 5 itd2
itxb2 1 6 §b1 ita3 1 7 h 3 ! ±
K iselev-Henin, U SS R 1 975/7·6.
(e) 9 . . . �d6 1 0 d3 ( 1 0 d4 e4!
oo F i scher) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0 (if
1 1 �c3 �d5 1 2 �f3 ? ! �xc3 1 3
be ith4 1 4 <!>g1 f5 1 5 g3 itf6 1 6
�e2 Tri ngov-Gellcr, Havana 1 97 1 ,
Black gains the advantage with
1 6 ... f4 ! + ) 1 1 ... �d5 ( 1 1 ... itc7
1 2 {)c3 �xh3 1 3 gh e4 1 4 �e4
�xh2+ 1 5 <!>h 1 �d5 1 6 �f3 ±
Veinger-Zhuravlyev, USS R 1 964)
1 2 {)c3 �xc3 1 3 be ith4 oo -
G ligoric .
(f) 9 . . . �c5 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 d 3 and
further:
(f1 ) 1 1 . . . �xh3 1 2 gh itd7 1 3 �f3
itxh3 1 4 �d2 §ad8 1 5 �g2 itf5

.. ... . - - �lt -"�

1 6 ite1 §feB 1 7 �e4 ± F ischer­
-·�
Bisguier, USA 1 963 .
.. . .. . (f2) 1 1 . . . �d5 1 2 �c3 ( 1 2 c4
��• �� • · · '-�
• ��• deserves consideration, for example :
1 2 ... �e7 1 3 <!>h 1 �xh 3 1 4 gh
. . . .{) �f5 1 5 f4 ! ef 1 6 �xf4 �e3 1 7
ft D ft D�H ft B. �xe3 .11x e3 1 8 �c3 ± Steinitz­
F�"Z-... n
R'-" IilfH9" �
� � -
��� Chigorin, match, 1 892 or 1 2 ...
�c7 1 3 <!>h 1 Q.xh 3 1 4 gh �e6 1 5
(a) 9 . . . �xh3 1 0 gh itd 5 ( 1 0 ... �e3 �d4 1 6 �c3 ;l; Weinger­
�c5 ! ?) 1 1 �f3 e4 1 2 �c3 ite5 Rytov, U SS R 1 972) 1 2 ... �xc 3 ? !
1 3 �g2 �d6 1 4 ite2 0-0 1 5 d3 ed (also insufficient is 1 2 . . . ith4? 1 3
1 6 it xeS �xeS 1 7 cd ;l; . �d2 �b6 1 4 .11f3 �xh3 1 5 gh
(b) 9 . . . �f5 1 0 0-0 itd7 1 1 § e 1 §adS 1 6 �g2 f5 1 7 ite 1 ± Mednis­
Q.xh3 1 2 gh itxh 3 1 3 �f1 ± Westerinen, Budapest 1 976; best of
Fischer, as now 1 3 . . . itg4+ cannot all is 1 2 ... �b7 ! ) 1 3 be l'th4 (here,
be played because of 14 itxg4 too, stronger is 1 3 . . . �b 7 unclear)
720 Two Knight 's Defence: 4�g5
1 4 \\>h 1 ! .Q.xh3 1 S gh itxh 3 1 6 .Q.f3
.Q.d6 1 7 .Q.g2 ith4 1 8 itf3 e4 1 9
ith3 itxh3 20 Q.xh3 ± Platonov­
Geller, USS R 1 969.
{f3) 1 1 ... � b 7 ! 1 2 �c3 �dS (also
good is 1 2 ... Q.b6 1 3 \\>h 1 �cS
with sufficient compensation for
the pawn, i.e., 1 4 Q.f3 �dS 1 S �g1
fS 1 6 �ge2 Q.a6 1 7 §e1 e4!
Kuindzhi-K iovan, USS R 1 973) 1 3
.Q.f3 .Q.b6 ! ( 1 3 ... fS ? 1 4 �xd S cd
1 S d4! ± ) 1 4 ite2 §e8 1 S §e1
�xc3 1 6 be Q.d7 1 7 Q.a3 §b8
18 §ab1 itc7 19 \\>h 1 �d6 20 �g1
�bS with an excellent game for
Black, N u n -Hard isay, Budapest
1 978.
9 e4
1 0 �eS (1 79}
B2 1 1 0 ... Q.d6
B22 10 ... itc7
Less advantageous for B l ack is
10 ... itd4 1 1 f4 ! (Worse is 1 1 �g4
because of 1 1 ... Q.xg4 1 2 Q.xg4
.Q.cS 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 c3 iteS 1 S d4
ed 1 6 b4 �xg4 1 7 itxg4 .Q.d6 1 8
f4 ite2 ! + Radchenko) 1 1 ... AcS
1 2 §fl itd8 { i f 1 2 ... .Q.b6, then
1 3 c3 itd6 1 4 b4 �b7 1 S 4la3 !
± Kopylov-Bondarevsky, USSR
1 9S 1 ) 13 c3 (on 1 3 d4 B l ack
should answer 13 ... .Q.b6 ! and now
if 14 .Q.e3 , then 14 ... �dS 1 S .Q.g1
0-0 1 6 c4 �b4 1 7 itd2 �d3+
1 8 Axd 3 ed 19 itxd 3 §e8 w ith
sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed material, Ragozin-Gel lcr,
USSR 1 949, and in the case of 14
b4 �d S 1S ba ith4+ 16 g3 Q.xaS+
1 7 Q.d2 itxh2 1 8 llxaS itxg3+
Black forces a d raw. Geller) 1 3 ...
�d S 1 4 ita4 0-0 1S itxe4 ith4+
1 6 \\>d 1 §d8 1 7 d4 f6 1 8 Q.d3 ±
Nesterenko-Mosin , USSR 1 963.
821
10 .Q.d6
11 f4
1 1 d4! ed ! is less promising
(not so clear is 1 1 ... itc7 1 2 Q.d2 ! ?
� b 7 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 �a3 unclear)
1 2 �xd3 itc7 with strong pressure,
i .e . :
{a) 1 3 f4 0-0 1 4 0-0 §e8 1 S �c3
.Q.fS + Byelov-Khohlovkin, USSR
1 9S4.
{b) 1 3 �a3 .Q.a6 ! 1 4 g3 0-0 1 S 0-0
§ad8+ Speilmann-Ei iskases, match
1 936.
(c) 13 �d2 0-0 14 b4 ( 1 4 �f3
cS +) 14 ... 4ld S ! 1 S Q.b2 �xb4
1 6 �xb4 .Q.xb4 1 7 0-0 §d8!
Spielmann-Cone, Stockholm 1 909.
{d) 1 3 h3 0-0 14 0-0 Q.fS 1S �d2
§ fe8 1 6 a3 §ad8 + F isheimer­
Gi igori c , USA 1 972.
(e) 1 3 b3 0-0 14 Q.b2 §e8 1 S h3
'llle 7 1 6 �c3 cS with a strong
in itiative for Black, i .e . : 1 7 0-0 c4
1 8 .Q.f3 cd ! 1 9 .Q.xa8 'Ille S 20 f4
'Ille S+ 2 1 \\>h1 de + Honfi -Polgar,
1 969.
11 0-0
Another good contin uation is
1 1 ... ef (weak i s 1 1 ... gS? 12 d4
 Two Knight 's Defence: 4{)g5 121

gf 1 3 Q.xf4 {)d5 1 4 0-0! ± ) 1 2 1 5 d4 White h as the advantage, for

{)xf3 0-0 1 3 d 4 ( I t is dangerous example : 1 5 ... ed 1 6 itxd 3 {)g4
for White to delay the advancement 1 7 l3 f4 ! itc5+ 1 8 itd4 itxd4 1 9
of the central pawn , for example: l3xd4 ± Estrin-Geister, USSR 1 964
1 3 0-0 c5 1 4 b3 {)c6 1 5 .Q.b2 .Q.b7 or 1 5 ... tte6 1 6 ite1 {)b7 1 7 ith4
1 6 {)a3 l3fe8 1 7 {)c4 Q.c7 1 8 {)h4? {)d6 1 8 .Q.xh6! {)f5 1 9 l3xf5
{)d4 1 9 Q.f3 {)g4! 20 g3 <ilxh2! 2 1 itxf5 20 §fl itg6 21 .Q.g5 ±
.Q. xb 7 <ile2+ + + Romanov-Akvist, Byelov-N ikitinykh, USS R 1 971 .
corres 1 966/68) and fu rther: 1 4 a3 {)d5 !
(a) 13 ... c5 14 de .Q.xc5 15 itxd 8 1 4 . . . 11xe5 1 5 fe itxe5 1 6 b4
l3xd 8 1 6 Q.d 2! {)c6 1 7 {)c3 {)b7 oo .
{)b4?! ( 1 7 . . . {)g4 Timman) 1 8 1 5 b4 {)b7
0-0-0 .Q.f5 1 9 {)e 1 {)g4 20 a3 1 6 .Q.b2 l3ae8
{)c6 21 {)d3 .Q.b6 (21 . . . llxd 3 1 7 g3 aS
22 .Q.xg4 ± ) 22 h 3 ! ± Timman­ B l ack has ful l compensation for
Bisguier, Sombor 1 974. the sacrificed pawn, as in Timman­
(b) 1 3 ... itc7 1 4 0-0 cS 1 5 {)c3 a6 Gi igoric , Bad Lauten berg 1 977.
1 6 '.t>h 1 (on 1 6 d5 l3e8 1 7 '.t>h1 After 1 8 {)c4 ab 19 {)xd5 cd 20
l3b8 18 a3 {)g4! 1 9 h3 {)e3 20 {)xd6 itb6+ 2 1 '.t>g2 {)xd6 22 ab
.Q.xe3 l3xe3 21 l3 b 1 ite7 Black has {)c4! 23 .Q.xc4 de B lack had the
good attac k ing possibil ities for the initiative.
sacri ficed pawn. E strin-Levenfish , 822
USS R 1 949) 1 6 . . . Q.b7 ( 1 6 . . . 10 itc7 (1 20)
l3e8 ! ?) 1 7 11e3 l3ad8 1 8 llg 1 l3 fe8
1 9 §e 1 {)c6 20 d5 {)b4 with 120 . ....... •I
su fficient compensation for the
sacrificed pawn . Spassky-Gel ler, w r-.
�.� � � � •t�r-.
Gi:iteborg 1 95 5 . • t •
-. R " .
• �
•
(c) 1 3 . . . l3 e 8 1 4 0-0 c5 1 5 '.t>h 1
.Q.b 7 1 6 {)c3 cd 1 7 itxd4 {)c6 1 8
. .
� .. �
. � ..
. .

ith4 {)e5 1 9 lld2 {)g6 20 itd4 .. • t • •

{)e4 2 1 .Q.c4 .Q.f4 and Black 's . . .. .
initiative is sufficient for equal ity, ft H ft B.AD ft B
Vu kevich-Roman ishin , Hastings ��V'
���- "� � -
@-�-- �
· t=l
1 976/7 7.
1 2 0-0 itc7 11 f4
On 1 2 . . . .Q.xe5 1 3 fe itd4+ 1 1 d4 ed 1 2 {)xd3 .Q.d6 is
1 4 '.t>h 1 itxe5 1 5 d4 ed 1 6 .Q.xd 3 considered under B 2 1 , and if 1 1
.Q.g4 1 7 ite1 itxe 1 1 8 l3xe 1 White {)g4 .Q.xg4 1 2 .Q.xg4 .Q.c5 ! B l ack h as
has the better of the endgame. a very strong attack , for example:
Dubovi k-Mainz, corres 1 957/58. 1 3 .Q.e2 §d8 14 c3 {)b7 1 5 0-0
1 3 {)c3 .Q.f5 ! h5 1 6 d4 ed 1 7 .11 x d3 {)g4 1 8
After 1 3 ... .Q.xe 5 1 4 fe itxe5 ite2+ '.t>f8 1 9 g3 itd7 ! 20 .Q.e2
722 Two Knight 's Defence: 40{15
h4 2 1 �f4 {)xh2 ! + + Ciocaltea­
Nezhmetd inov, Bucharest.
11 �cS
1 2 c3
Black also has a good game
after 1 2 d4 ed 1 3 cd 0-0 1 4 {)c3
or 1 4 �d2 {)dS ! 1 S *a4 �b6 1 6
{)c3 f6 + Gi lezetd inov-Kiovan,
corres 1 968/69) 14 ... §b8! 1 S
*c2 §e8 1 6 .Q.d 2 �d4 1 7 {)f3 cS
1 8 �f1 {)c6 + Yudovich-Brglez,
corres 1 978.
12 {)b7
1 3 b4
A lso possible is 1 3 *a4 {worse
is 1 3 d4 ed 1 4 *xd 3 0-0 1 S {)d2
{)d6 16 .Q.f3 �fS 1 7 *e2 {)dS +
Fine-Steiner, match 1 944) 1 3 ...
�d7 14 {)a3 0-0 1 S b4 .Q.b6 1 6
{)ac4 {)d6 1 7 -tle3 aS 1 8 *c2
-tldS = Estrin-Danberg, corres 1 96S/
66.
13 .Q.b6
1 3 ... �d6 is also not bad : 14 d4
ed e.p. 1 S *xd 3 0-0 1 6 0-0 aS
1 7 �f3 �xeS 1 8 fe *xeS 1 9 .Q.xc6
ab 20 *bS *xbS 21 �xbS = the missing pawn . Analysis.
Mednis-Spassky, Antwerp 1 9SS.
14 -tla3
If 14 a4 aS 1 S bS 0-0 1 6 be,
1 6 ... {)cS ! ? deserves consideration
{if 1 6 ... -tld6, then 1 7 .Q.a3 §d8
1 8 Q.xd6 ;!; Byelov-Solovicv, USS R
1 968) 1 7 {)a3 {)d5 1 8 g3 .Q.h3 1 9
.Q.f1 f6 ! 20 -tlbS *c8 21 {)d7
{)d3+! 22 .Q.xd 3 ed 23 -tlb6 *xc6!
24 -tld4 *b6 with a dangerous in­
itiative for B lack. Yudovic-Bokhak,
corres 1 973/7 S .
14 {)d6
1 S {)c2 aS !
Worse is 1 S ... gS ? 1 6 c4! cS
1 7 0-0 cb+ 1 8 �h 1 .Q.e6 1 9 .Q.b 2 ±
Arul aid-K iovan, USSR 1 96 1 .
1 6 ba
Worse is 1 6 a4 -tldS 1 7 g3 0-0
1 8 �a3 §d8 + Banke-Rickers,
corres 1 977/80.
16 §xaS
1 7 -tle3 =
The position which has arisen
must be evalu ated as roughly leve l .
B l ac k 's initiative compensates for
I ndex

Page numbers are italicised .

Ponziani Opening
1 e4 e5 2 <£lf3 <£lc6 3 c3
A 3 ... f5 7
B 3 ... d 5 2
c 3 ... <£lf5 5
D 3 ... .Q.c7 9

Scotch Gambit
1 e4 e5 2 <£lf3 <£lc6 3 d4 ed
A 4 .Q.c4 7 0
B 4 c3 7 7

Scotch Game
1 e4 e5 2 <£lf3 <£lc6 3 d4 ed 4 <£lxd4
A 4 ... "tth 4 7 7
B 4 ... <£lf6 79
C 4 ... .Q.c5 23
D 4 ... *f6 33

Three Knight's
1 e4 e5 2 <£lf3 <£lc6 3 <£lc3
4 d4 ed
A 5 <£ld5 36
B 5 <£lxd4 37

Four Knight 's

1 e4 e5 2 <£lf3 <£lc6 3 <£lc3 <£lf6
A 4 .Q.b5 39
B 4 d4 4 7

Hungarian Defence
1 e4 e5 2 <£lf3 <£lc6 3 .Q.c4
A 3 ... .Q.e7 5 7
B 3 ... d 6 60
1 24 Index
Italian Game
1 e4 c5 2 {)f3 {)c6 3 .Q.c4
A 4 d3 63
B 4 c3 65

Evans Gambit
1 e4 e5 2 {)f3 {)c6 3 .Q.c4 .Q.c5 4 b4
A 4 ... .Q.xb4 72
B 4 ... .Q.b6 78

Two Knights Defence

1 e4 e5 2 {)f3 {)c6 3 .Q.c4 {)f6

I n troduc tion and various 4th moves 81

4 d4 ed
A 5 {)g5 83
B 5 e5 84
c 5 0-0 97

4 {)g5
A 4 ... .Q.c5 7 03
B 4 ... d 5 7 74