Jan Pinski Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Jan Pinski ei game AVE TAs eludeJan Pinski Italian game and Evans gambit a de ela lech) Gloucester Publishers ple www.everymanchess.corFirst published in 2005 by Gloucester Publishers ple (formerly Everyman Publishers ple), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London ECV 0AT Copyright © 2005 Jan Pinski ‘The right of Jan Pinski to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Alll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording ot otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 373 X Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Fiveryman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London ECTV OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence from Random House Inc. EEVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs General editor: John Emms Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides. Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.CONTENTS 1 ed e5 2 AF3 Ac6 3 2c4 Part One: Italian Game Introduction and the Italian Four Knights ‘The First Steps in the Italian Game ‘The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game ‘The Italian Regretted: White plays 5 d3 awn Part Two: Evans Gambit 5 The Evans Gambit Declined 6 The Evans Gambit with 5...2¢7 7 ‘The Evans Gambit with 5...8c5 8 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5....8a5 9 ‘The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...2a5 w Part Three: Other Lines 10 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines Index of Complete Games it 23 40 ae 75 88 103 120 140CHAPTER ONE Introduction and the Italian Four Knights aa OLORO is “UNG I will assume that the reader has already made up his own mind on two of the most common opening moves in the last 500 years of chess history, and jump straight into the third move with... 1 e4 e& 2 DF3 Dc6 3 Ach Grandmaster Paul Keres wrote about this move: ‘too calm to give White advantage’ This can, of course, be discussed, but more importantly we should remember that the opening is not played in order to gain an advantage, but in order build the foundation for a later (or occa- sionally immediate) victory. A theoretical plus is just one of many ways to gain a practical advantage in a game of chess. Another is familiarity with the different typical positions. Yet another is simply knowing the essential theory, or playing a line with which your opponent is unfamil- jar, Now let us not get lost in talk, and instead allow Black to execute his move. Now what about 3...2c5 here? Does it not have the same defects as 3 Bcd - ? Instead 3...£6 looks optically better, as it is attacking the pawn on e4; but surely it is more a matter of taste than of beauty contests at such an early stage in the game. 3....Af6 would take us into the past and my previous book on the Two Knights Defence, while 3...8.c5 leads to the future and the following pages on the Italian Game, one of the oldest chess openings. 3...805 In the diagram position White has many ideas and possibilities, but only two give interesting play: 4 c3 with all the main lines of the Italian Game, and theitalian Game and Evans Gambit 19th century favourite 4 b4, the Evans Gambit. In this chapter we shall look at White’s less ambitious option, the Four Knights Italian Game. Game t N.Short-A.Aleksandrov Tymir 2004 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 Lcd 2c5 4 De3 In this position White has also tried some other moves: The 4 d4? gambit was refuted a long time ago with 4..2xd4! 5 Dxd4 Axd4 6 £4.d57 exdS Wh4+ 8 93 Wh3 9 £1 WES. 10 43 e4 and Black was much better, H.Fahrni-RSpielmann, Baden Baden 1914, 40-0 is completely toothless, and Black can do as he pleases. Here we will look at two options: a) 4..f6 can be met with another silly gambit: 5 d4?!, but after this risky move White is likely to have to fight for equality, eg. 5..Sxd4 6 Dxd4 Dxdd 7 £4 d6 8 fxe5 dxe5 9 Bes WeT (if 9...26 10 a3 We? 11 c3 Bxcd 12 Axct Deb 13 Sxf6 gxf6 14 hi! with compensation for the pawn) 10 Ac3 c6 11 Wd3 Be6 12 Bxe6 Dxe6 13 Bxf6 gxf6, and now Black is better because the white knight has difficulties finding its way to f5. b) 4..d6 5 c3 Wi6 (5...24 is a sound option given by Paul Keres; play might very well continue 6 d4 exd4 7 Wb3 Wa7 8 2xt7t+ Wxt7 9 Wxb7 &d7 10 Wad, Qxf3 11 exf3 Ded 12 Ad2 Axf3+ 13 Dsxf3 Wx 14 Was Wed+ with perpetual check) 6 d3 b6 7 23 Age? 8 b4 Bxe3 9 fxe3 0-0 10 Wel Bc6 11 Ad4 Web 12 D®xe6 fxe6 13 Bxf8+ Bxf8 14 Wo3 with equality, R.Rabiega-A.Yusupov, German Championship 2001. 4...2f6 5 d3 d6 In positions like this you can beat even grandmasters. Obviously before this can happen, they will have to die from bore- dom... 6 295 6 0-0 is another example of the non- event we have before us, and then: a) 6...8,¢4?! 7 h3 h5? is a distinctively bad line (though 7...&xf3 8 Wxf3 and White is slightly better was not the idea) 8 hxg4 hxg4 9 Dg5 and it is hard for Black to prove compensation for the piece. b) 6..a6 7 h3 a5 8 a3 Axc4 9 dxc4 &e6 10 Wd3 Ahs 11 Ad5?! (instead 11 Edi with equality) 11..c6 12 Ac3 bS 13 cxb5 axb5 14 Hdl Sc4 and Black is slightly better. ‘T.Luther-F.Borkowski, Naleczow 1987. 6...h6 7 2xf6 Or 7 Bh4 Opt 8 h3 2x3 9 Wxf3 \d4 10 Wail 6 with equality. 7...Wxf6 8 Dd5 Was 8... Wg6? is refuted by 9 Dbd! (this is better then 9 We2 as recommended inIntroduction and the Italian Four Knights ECO) 9.. gS 10 @xc7+ Sd8 11 Dxa8 Wxh4 12 Wd2 a6 13 c3 bd 14 Bd5 &b7 15 b4 @a7 16 a4 and White wins. 93 a6 Black can easily drift into a worse position here, eg. 9..De7 10 d4 exd4 (or 10..Axd5 11 dxc5 Af4 12 g3 Db3 13 cxd6 cxd6 14 Wad+ 68 15 Wh4 and White is slightly better) 11 cxd4 &b6 12 ®xb6 axb6 13 0-0 d5 14 exd5 Axd5 15 Heit 2e6 16 Ded 0-0 17 WES gives White some plus, A.Horvath- A.Aleksandrov, Izmir 2004. 10 d4 2a7 Better pethaps was 10,.exd4! 11 cxd4 a7 123 De7 13 0-0 Axd5 14 Bxd5 0-0 15 Hel c6 16 &b3 Be8 with equality in B.Macieja-M.Adams, Calvia Olympiad 2004. 11 dxe5 DxeS 12 DxeS dxeS 13 WhS 0-0 14 Wxe5 He8 15 Wid Was 16 Wxd6 Hxed+ 17 De3 cxd6 According to ECO this position is equal. 18 &d5! An unpleasant idea to have to face. 18...Ne5? Once out of theory Black makes a mistake. Instead 18.7! 19 0-0-0 Rxe3+ 20 fxe3 Be4 21 Hd4 Re6 22 Lxe6 Hxes would have kept equality. 19 0-0-0! ‘This is the surprise Black had most likely underestimated. White sacrifices a pawn and now Black has problems com- pleting his development. 19...2xe3+ 20 fxe3 Hxe3 21 Hhf1 Re6 22 &xb7 Ha7 23 2d5 a5 24 2xe6 Exe6 25 d2 This ending is probably lost for Black. He has two weaknesses (the d6- and a5- pawns) and no sensible counterplay. 25...a4 26 we2 g5?! In my opinion this just creates another weakness. The passive 26.818 27 Hf Be ete. looks slightly better. 27 Ef5 &g7 28 Aid5 Za6 29 a3! White’s wants to cat the a4-pawn. 29...f6 30 %c4 Hb6 31 Had He4+ 32 &d3 Hg4 33 Bf2 &g6 34 3 Hh4 35 HafS Bf4 36 B5xt4 gxt4 37 wed eg5 38 Hd2 5+ 39 wf3 Ec6 40 a3 Eb6 41 h4+ exha? The position is lost and Aleksandrov commits suicide. Basic life functions would have been kept operational with A1..So6. 42 &xf4 d5 43 Bd3 1-0Italian Game and Evans Gambit Game 2 B.Larsen-T.Ochsner Danish Championship, Esbjerg 1997 1 ef eB 2 Ac3 AG 3 ATS Acé 4 Sc 5 5 d3 d6 6 295 I know, I know, why do we have to look at this boring line once again? Well, although this is all rather harmless and toothless, White still managed to win our main games; and I also want to find space to include a little more theory: a) 6 Be3 Bb6 (6...Nd4!? gives interesting play, as after 7 Axd4 exd4 8 Dad Sb4+ 9 c3 dxc3 10 bxe3 Bad 11 0-0 0.0 Black stands well) 7 Wd2 8.e6 8 &b5 0-0 9 Bxc6 bxc6 10 0-0 Ad7 11 d4 £6 12 h3 Wes with equality. b) 6 Aad Bb6 7 c3 Be6 8 Bb5 0-09 Axc6 bxc6 10 &e5 We7 11 0-0 h6 12 Bh4 Bc8!. Black shrewdly avoids problems on the h4-e8 diagonal. Now after 13 h3 Weo he had equality in Y.Rantanen- Y.Razuvaev, Helsinki 1984. ©) 6 h3 Be6 7 Dds h6 with equality. 6...a5 position, so it becomes a little more interesting, 7 2b3 Another practical example: 7 @d5 Dsc4 8 dxc4 c6 9 DxfG+ gxfO 10 Le3 Woo 11 Wd2 Be (if (1..Axe3 12 fee3 Wxb2 13 0-0 with compensation) 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 with unclear play, V.Korchnoi-D.Bronstein, USSR Cham- pionship 1952. 7...c6 8 0-0 White can also strike immediately in the centre with 8 d4. Then after 8..Axb3 9 axb3 exd4 10 Axd4 ho 11 Bhd 0-0 12 0-0 g5 13 &g3 Be8 14 Eel d5 15 e5 Ded 16 Wd3, asin’ A.Morozevich- Kir.Georgiev, Tilburg 1994, Black should play 16..Axg3! 17 hxg3 We7 with the advantage, instead of 16...Sxd4?!_17 Wad4 265 18 Axed Bxe4 19 Hxa7 Bxa7 20 Wra7 2xc2 21 Wxb7 when it would be White who is better. 8...0-0 9 De2 Axb3 Or 9...g4 10 Ag3 h6 11 Le3 with equality. 10 axb3 h6 11 2e3 &b6 12 Dg3 2e6 TE RY x ® wR Ang Pere Ds This is also good for Black. And more importantly, it changes the nature of the Black is slowly getting into trouble against his legendary opponent. HereIntroduction and the Italian Four Knights 12..He8! guaranteed equality, thanks to the pressure against the e4-pawn. 13 Wd2 h7?! Black is apparently afraid of a sacrifice on h6, but I cannot sce how that would ever work. Black can always play ...Dg4 in the end. Therefore 13..e8!? 14 &xb6 Wxbo 15 d4 Bg4 16 dxe5 decd 17 We3 2x 18 Wsxf3 Wb4 with equality was better. 14 &xb6 Wxb6 15 d4 exd4 16 Dxd4 wrt Ye AED ee a 16...[ife8?! Black is apparently too complacent, while it was time to do something to stay in the game; eg. 16...d5!? 17 Wd3 hs 18 5 Ad7 19 £4 £6! with unclear play. 17 fe g6? ‘This completely unnecessarily creates a weakness. 17..d5 was better, when White can reply 18 e5 Ad7 19 Wed with the initiative, 18 Had1 g7 19 ha! A typical move, using the g-pawn as a hook. 19...He7 20 Adf5+! 20...2xf5 The tactical justification for the knight sacrifice was 20...exf5? 21 exf5 Wc5 22 b4 Wed 23 fre6 Bxe6 24 AS+ Sg8 25 b3 Ws 26 We and White wins. 21 exf5 BaeB 22 Hxe7 Mxe7 23 fxg6 fxg6 24 h5! DxhS 25 We3+ Lh7 26 DxhS gxhS 27 Hxd6 WS 28 Bxh6+ sexh6 29 Wi6+ &h7 30 Wxe7+ sg6 31 Wed In the end material superiority decides. 31.,.Wa5 32 wh2 Wal 33 We6+ eg7 34 Wa7+ &f8 35 Wc8+ we7 36 Wxb7+ wd6 37 Wb4+ Ld5 38 West ed6 39 Wd4+ Lo7 40 b4 kb7 41 4 Wel 42 bS cxb5 43 Wd7+ “be 44 Wxb5+ skc7 45 We5+ &b7 46 b4 Wta+ 47 g3 Wg4 48 b5 We2 49 Wd5+ &b8 50 wg2 Wes 51 Was &c7 52 We3 Wa8+ 53 £3 a6 54 bxa6 10Italian Game and Evans Gambit Summary We have seen in the notes to the two games above that the Italian Four Knights is theoretically completely harmless. At the same time we have also seen that stronger players can outplay their opponents by simple means, if these opponents have little to show on the day, But then we can lose against the London System as well. To bate these lines it is more important to be in good form, than to know theoretical ideas and moves. 1 e4e5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 &c4 Ac5 (D) 4 Ac3 (D) 4.d4—see Game 1 4.0-0—see Game 1 4... 6 5 d3 d6 6 295 (D) 6..h6 — Game 1 6... a5 — Game 2CHAPTER TWO First Steps in the Italian Game In this chapter we will take a first glance at the position after 1 4 e5 2 3 Ac6 3 &c4 Bc5 43 ‘This is the most interesting and strongest move; White is building up to enforce 5 d4, which will give him the superiority in the centre, This is a strategically more aggressive strategy than the symmetry of the previous chapter, and the source from which the need for real opening theory on the Italian Game stems. Black can meet 4 ¢3 is a variety of ways, where 4...2)f6 is the strongest. Ac- cording to current theory Black can also equalise with 4..We7, but I think this is less than obviously certain. Actually, in the games below, I will go as far as to claim an advantage for White in all lines. In this chapter we shall also have a quick look at a line which, in grandmaster play, achieves only equality, but is successful lower down. After 4 c3 Df6 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 many games have continued with moves other than the absolutely essential 6...d5, which equalises at once. But first let us examine 4... We7. Game 3 A.Alekhine-S.Tarrasch Mannheim 1914 1 04 e5 2 Af3 DAc6 3 2c4 2c5 43 We7 According to standard theory this move leads to equality. In my opinion White is at least slightly better. Black has also tried some alternative methods of solving his opening problems at this early stage, other than the sane development of his knight. Though they have little theo- eeItalian Game and Evans Gambit retical importance, it would be wrong not to have a glance at them. a) 4...W/f621 was once a frequent visitor to international tournaments, but these days we know that White can more or less refute it brutally with 5 d4! &b6 Gf 5..exd4?! 6 e5 Wyo 7 cxd4 Bb4+ 8 Dc3 and White is much better as the g2-pawn is untouchable, ic. 8..Wxg2? 9 Het Wh3 10 &xf7+! and Black is in real trouble) 6 0-0 h6 7 a4 a6 8 dxeS Axed 9 Dxes Wre5 10 WES AIG 11 a5 Ba7 12 Bel and White has a clear advantage according to Max Euwe. b) 4.652! looks very dubious. White surely has a lot of sound options here, but instead of looking for an refutation, 1 will recommend the simple 5 d3, when play can continue 5..A\f6 6 b4 &b6 7 a4 a6 (7..fxe4? 8 dxed Axet 9 0-0 a5 10 Was ®d6 11 @xe5 with a terrible attack) 8 0-0 d6 9 Dba2 and White is much better, as Black has problems with his king. ©) 4.46 5 d4 exd4 has been played once in a while as well. Now after 6 cxd4 Rb4t+ 7 Dc3 Let 8 0-0 Wa7 9 ds Ads 10 b3 @h5 11 Wad &xc3 12 Wxc3 White is slightly better according to ECO. 544 AY y S RK You GN, 5,..8b6 Black cannot give up the centre with 5...exd4?!, Strategically it is a catastrophe, and it does not work out tactically either, after the energetic 6 0-0! when we should look at the following lines: a) 6..dxc3 7 Axc3 dé 8 Ads Was 9 b4! Bxb4 10 Axb4 Axb4 11 Wb3 and White is much better. b) 6..Ae5 7 exd4 Axed (or 7...Dxf3+ 8 oxf3 2b6 9 Dc3 c6 10 Hel with a clear advantage) 8 We2! 2b6 9 Wxc4 dé 10 @c3 and White is better. 60-0 6 Bp5l? is quite a tricky move, which should probably be met with the anti- structural 6...f6!2. I have doubts about Black’s prospects after 6..2\f6, when I would be quite tempted to go for the following pawn sacrifice, in order to get su- preme control over the light squares in the centre: 7 d5 Ad’ 8 d6 cxd6 Black cannot stand the exchange of queens, as his pawn structure is a total ruin after 8... Wxd6?! 9 Wxd6 cxd6 10 Bxf6 gxf6, when 11 Db4 d5 12 &xd5 gives White a clear advantage) 9 Da3 Ja aR Y mm, and here we should probably look at the two lines separately:First Steps in the Italian Game a) 9..a6 10 Bd5 Aeé 11 Acd Bc? 12 De3 and White is just much better. b) 9...S2xf2+ 10 Be! d5 (I think this might be forced; after 10...8¢5 11 Ab4 Deo 12 Ars We 13 Vxf6 pxf 14 b4 4+ 15 £3 White is much better) 11 Wxd5 Axd5 12 Bxe7 Bxe7 13 Lxd5 Rc5 14 b4 Bd6 15 Ded £6 16 De3 and White has very good compensation for the pawn. 6...d6 As I said, I think this position is slightly better for White. Tad This is not too testing of course. In- stead I will here risk my neck and dubious reputation on the underestimated 7 d5i, claiming it will guarantee White a small advantage after 7..d8 8 &d3 Afo 9 DNbd2 c6 Black should of course avoid 9...Dh5? 10 Axed Wxe5 when 11 Acd wins) 10 Ac4 Bc7 and now White has two interesting possibilities to consider: a) 11 Bc2l? h6 12 De3 0-0 13 h3 exd5 14 exdS Dh7 15 Des Wr 16 Wa3 2x5 17 Wxf5 Wf 18 2xf5 26 19 Bc2 p7 20 Dh2 £5 21 Hai Ato 22 Del AK? 23 c4 and White was slightly better in A.Tzetmiadianos-M.Lazic, Kavala 1996. b) 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 b3 &e6 13 We2 0-0 14 223 and White is slightly better, A.Becker-C.Ahues, Munich Olympiad 1936. So I have some confidence that White is seriously fighting for an advantage here, or let us say that Black is struggling to equalise, and will probably have to come up with something else on move 9, but I am not really aware of what it would be. 7...a6 8 £e3 t. sae ag z 8...2.947! I do not see a great future for the bishop on g4. Instead I would recommend leaving the square vacant for the knight. After 8..Af6 9 Abd2 Des 10 We2 Dxe3 11 fxe3 0-0 12 Bf2 the posi tion is mote of less equal. 9 d5 Db 10 a5 Sxe3 11 fxe3 DE 12 Dbd2 Abd7 13 Wet Ac5 14 Wht! White is not ashamed of regretting the placement of the queen, as Black’s knight will shortly be driven back to the stables with a stick. After something stupid like 14 Wg3?! hS! Black is better because of the weakness of the e4-pawn. One line goes 15 @g5 h4 16 WF2 h3 17 g3 Hhs 18 13Italian Game and Evans Gambit b4 Exg5 19 bxc5 dxc5 and Black is clearly better. 14.208?! Black obviously has trouble getting something useful out of his bishop. This total retreat, however, is not the best way to deal with the issue, After the more re- spectful 14...0-0 it is true that 15 b+ Dcd7 16 &d3 Bfe8 17 c4 gives White better play, but Black can still hold the position, 15 b4 Ded7 16 Dh4! g6 This weakness is hard to avoid. After 16..Ag4 17 Dts We5 18 ABZ White is better. 17 Wel c6 18 Dhf3 cxd5 19 exd5 e4 eventually ending up at d4, Though there is nothing wrong with this, it seems quite logical also to consider going there directly, After 20 Dd4 Ae5 21 Hea! White is much better (but after 21 &b3 Bd7 22 We2 Hc8 Black would be able to keep the position together), e.g, 21...8d8 (21...0-0? 22 Wh4 and White wins) 22 WA Degt 23 We2 g5 24 Hffl Wes 25 g3 etc. 20...h6 21 Dh3 Here White should not fall for 21 Wh4?? Dh7 and Black wins. 21...We5 22 Hc Dg4 23 Af4 g5 24 h3 Agfé 25 Ae2 ‘The white knight is getting to the end of its long journey, and will land on d4 and exploit the recent weakening of the f5-square. Now Black should have util- ised the weaknesses he has created on the kingside to obtain counterplay. Instead he fell pray to materialism. 25...A\xd5? Better was 25...g4, though after 26 We We7 27 Ad4 De5 28 hxgd xe 29 DES Bxf5 30 ExfS Bg8 31 We White has a clear advantage. 26 &xd5 Wxd5 27 Ad4 20 &g5!? The knight begins a long journey, 27... Web? This is nothing but a stupid blunder. 14Black should have played 27.28 28 We Hh7 29 Ass Wxfs 30 Wsf5 Sxf5 31 Exf5 and White is much better. 28 Ac4 Wd5 29 AS Sts 30 Dfxdé Now White wins. 30...2h7 31 Hd1 We6 32 Bd4 b6 33 axb6 &b7 34 a5 1-0 Game 4 D.Tyomkin-I.Zugic Montreal 2004 The following game shows another way to battle for the advantage against 4... We7, and seems very convincing. With simple play White breaks through on the queenside before Black can create any kind of counterplay on the kingside. 1 e4 eB 2 Af3 Ac6 3 Lcd 2c5 40-0 d6 5 c3 We7 6 d4 2b6 7 h3 Please note that 4 0-0 is principally harmless, and that 4 c3 We7 5 d4 &b6 6 0-0 d6 7 h3 is the more critical move order, with which we would reach this position. 7...D6 8 He hé This is the beginning of an overopti- mistic plan. Black apparently is in a very aggressive mood, but his taste for vio~ First Steps in the Italian Game lence was probably not meant to end in the way it did, Sounder was something like 8..0-0 9 a4 a6 10 a3, and here we should take a short look at the position with Black and try to be reasonable. a) 10..@h82! 11 Ac2 Dgset 12 b4 £6 13 @ec3 left White much better in W.Heidenfeld-M.Euwe, — Johannesburg 1955. Black can improve with 11..exd4 12 exd4 h6, but after 13 e5 White still has the advantage. b) 10..exd4 11 cxd4 Wd7 does not look too appetising if we consider it as a position to reach when we chose our 4th move, but here it is appropriate, After simple moves like 12 a2 He8 13 &b1 White is slightly better. 9 b4! White is playing very fast on the queenside and his initiative goes as smoothly as a warm knife through butter. This means that Black will have to defend and does not have time to attack himself with ...g7-p5. Another option here was 9 a4 a6 10 &c3, but then Black has some time on his hands and can continue with 10...g5 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 &xb6 cxb6 13 Dh2 86 with equality according to Unzicker. 15Italian Game and Evans Gambit 9...a6 10 a4 g5?! Black is not really attuned into the finer details of the position. His position was still more or less sound if he had played more calmly, After the sounder 10...0-0 11 a3 Dd7 12 bS Dad 13 Ba2 We 14 Wa3 Hes 15 Dbd2 White was only slightly better in E.Torre-R.Ekstroem, Lugano 1989. 11 a5 a7 12 b5 Dds Tt was probably around here that Black started to come to his senses; but it is already too late to find a decent position. After the apparently logical 12...axb5 13 &xb5 Sd7, White can break through on the queenside with 14 a6!, and on 14..bxa6 15 Exa6 @b8 16 &xd7+ Wxd7 17 a3 White has a brilliant initiative on the queenside, while Black’s attack still has to develop beyond biting his finger at White. 13 2a3! The breakthrough on the queenside in this game is very instructive. White could have gained a good position with simple moves like 13 bxa6l? bxa6 14 Wd3, but this would give Black time to execute his own plan, and after 14.24 15 hxgt Axed 16 Bc2 He8 17 Dbd2 White is only somewhat better. 13...Ad7 ‘The idea behind White’s last (prophy- lactic) move is seen when Black tries to carry out his desired 13..g4. Now the initiative explodes with 14 Axe5! gxh3 15 bxa6 bxaé 16 Wad+ Ad7 17 Dco Wh4 18 23 Bg8 19 &h2 Wee 20 B22 and White is much better. 14 dxe5S 1 really enjoy watching the simple, yet strong exploitation of White’s advantage in this game. I find it quite logical that White should open the position for his pieces here, where he is ahead in development. Nevertheless, after something like 14 b6 S&b8 15 Wad c6 16 Abd2 White is also better. 14...Dxe5 15 Axed Wxe5 16 b6 £b8 White has managed to reduce the black pieces to chickens pushed against a wall, and now only needs to activate his queenside to convert his advantage. With his next six moves White manages to finish his development and target the key weaknesses in the black position. To many amateurs these moves might seem simple, but to replicate these simple moves in practice would be quite difficult, even for 16First Steps in the Italian Game experienced players. 17 bxc7! This is better then the artistic 17 &cl Hy8 18 Sc3 e4 19 h4 Be6 20 bxc7 Axc7 21 Bd5 even though this also leaves White with a big advantage. 17...2xe7 18 Dd2! 0-0 Black finally decides to do something about his king, Although it would not have been out of style to end the game with something silly like 18...2xa5? 19 AEs Wxc3 20 Wxd6 and White wins. 19 2d5 He8 20 Aca Whe 21 Be3! 2d7 22 WB! This is stronger than 22 Wh5, although after the following piece of analysis, 22...8b5 23 Abo Bb8 24 HS Wy7 25 Bel Deb 26 c4 cb 27 Bb2 Wye6 28 Wep6t fxg6 29 Eo @xd5 30 cxdd Dts 31 &d4, we can conclude that White is much better too. 22...Wg6 Also after 22...Wixf3 23 Bxf3 will Black lose the d6-pawn. 23 Wg3 Ac6 24 &xd6 And that’s all folks! 24...2d8 25 Ab6 Lxb6 26 axb6 Hac8 27 Lc7 He6 28 &xe6 2xe6 29 Hd1 &h7 30 f4 gxf4 31 Wxf4 Wg5 32 Wxg6 hxg5 33 Ed6 a5 34 Hed3 2c4 35 Hg3 BgB 36 Ld8 g4 37 hxg4 296 38 216 2e6 39 g5 Eg8 40 Zgd3 Aca 1-0 Game 5 E.Sveshnikov-R.Dautov Pinsk 1986 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 2c4 cb 4 c3 M6 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 Jon 'y EVENS As mentioned above, this is hardly dangerous for Black if he knows what he’s doing, The important point here is that Black is forced to counter-strike in the centre without hesitation. 6...d5! 7 2b5 Ae4 8 cxd4 Now Black has three possibilities. 8..Rb6 and 8..2e7 are considered here, while 8...&b4+ is investigated in the next game. 8...8b6 might look a little passive at first sight, but it is a completely viable possibility. Then 9 c3 0-0 10 Re3!? (this appears to be better than 10 8.43 5 1 exf6 Axf6 12 Be3 Abs 13 Bb1 Des with counterplay, WSteinitz-Em.Lasker, New York match 1894) 10...f5 11 exf6 17Italian Game and Evans Gambit @Dxf6 12 De5 was seen in the recent game B.Macieja-C.Garcia Moreno, Span- ish League 2004. Now, instead of 12..b8 as played, 1 would suggest 12..Wd6l 13 Rf4 Dds 14 0-0 Deo 15 &e3 a6 16 Re2 c5 with counterplay as an improvement. 9 Ac3 9 a4?! a5 10 Be3 0-0 11 &xc6 bxcb 12 0-0 was strategically dubious, and after 12...f5 13 exf6 Wsxf6 Black is at least equal, A.Bito-P.Lukacs, Budapest 1985. 9...0-0 10 &xc6 ‘This exchange appears quite risky. It is easy to end in a position where White is under attack from the dynamic duo, aka Black’s bishop pair. ‘There is little need to exchange on c6 immediately. White would be better off playing 10 2312, when play is likely to continue 10.294 11 We2 &xf3 12 gxf3 De5 13 Bxc6 bxc6 14 0-0-0 Dxf3, and now GM Sveshnikov continues his analysis with 15 WES Dh4 16 Wet Ago 17 h4 5 18 exf6 Wxf6 19 h5 Drs 20 Bha where he claims that White has full compensation for the pawn, Actually I fear that White is fighting for a draw, and is not guaranteed to succeed. A possible continuation is 20...Ae6 21 h6 g6 22 hs. Hac8 23 Hes Ad8 24 Hxc8 Rxe8 25 Wd7 WET ete. However, White’s play can be greatly improved. After 15 We2! Ah4 16 Ehg! White has real threats coming up on the kingside, and Black will not be able to free himself as easily as in the other line. It is hard to make a final conclusion, but ‘with compensation’ is not an unfair evaluation. 10...bxc6 11 £637! White is trying to play against the bishop on b6, but it was better simply to continue 11 0-0 S&g4 12 Hel with equal- 11...2.g4? This does not really achieve anything. Here Black had the chance to annoy the bishop on 3, or if White wants to avoid this, he will have to give up a lot of his presence in the centre. After 11..£5! 12 exf6 Wxf6, Black is just better. Strong grandmasters have tried this out in two recent games: a) 13 Wb3 We6 14 Des Wxg2 15 0-0-0 Axf2 16 Bhgl Axdi 17 Bxg2 Dxe3 18 Be2 Rxd4 19 DAxc6 Bb6 20 AxdS Hel+ 1821 td2 Hdi+ 22 &c3 Het+ 23 bd2 Hc2+ 24 Bel Exe2+ 25 Wxe2 LaG+ with a dangerous initiative, J.Rowson- LSokoloy, Selfoss 2003. b) 13 Dxet dxet 14 DAd2 Bao! 15 Dxe4 La5+ 16 Ac3 Kxc3+ 17 bxc3 Wes and again Black had a deadly initiative in B.Macieja-G.Vescovi, Bermuda 2004. 12 Wad c57! Black is enteting a quagmire of bad tac- tics, 12...2.xf3 was better, although after 13 gxf3 Dxc3 14 bxc3 Wes 15 £4 Web 16 Bol Hac8 17 Wc2 Wh3 18 0-0-0! White has some initiative, because of the weak black bishop on b6. 13 dxe5 2xf3 If 13..2xc5?? 14 Bxc5 Dxc5 15 Wxp4 and White wins, 14 gxf3 Axed 15 &xc5 Axc5 16 0-0-0! Now Black has some problems with the d-pawn and also, less obviously, with his king, as the open g-file can become an engine for a dangerous white attack. 16...Wes Black has an unpleasant choice here. He can play the text move, or 16..d4 17 Det Bb6 18 Hhgl Wh4 19 Het when White has an unpleasant attack, or First Steps in the Italian Game 16...We7 17 Eixd5 Had8 18 Ehd1 &xf2 19 £4 where White is also better. 17 Wa5 Axf2 18 Wxd5 We6 19 &b1 White would, of course, not mind en- tering the endgame. The black pieces have difficulties working together; his bishop especially is lacking a useful diagonal. Maybe Black has more chances in the endgame, but it is understandable that he chooses to avoid it, even though this is probably mistaken. 19...Bac8 20 Bhf1 2b6 21 £4 WE5+ After the better try 21...Waxd5 22 @xd5 Hfe8 23 ES c6 24 Axb6! (24 Dc3 Beds 25 Bfd3 Bxd3 26 Bxd3 £6 would allow Black to gain counterplay) 24...axb6 25 Bd6 White still has some winning chances. His advantage is not necessarily that great, but it is a firm and stable superiority, that in practice will cost Black a very tough defence in return for the draw. 22 Hal h6 23 Ded e is just much better here. 23...&h7 24 2g3 Wg4 25 a3 Wh3 26 We4+ &h8 27 £5 c6 28 £6 g6 29 Ara Ecd8 30 Hd6 Wxh2 31 Bh4 Wg1+ 32 La2 We3 33 Wh1 33 Exc6l? is also possible, as after 33..0hfe8 34 Whi @h7 35 Hc2! White 19Italian Game and Evans Gambit wins. The ideas are 35..Hxe5 36 He2 or 35...Wg5 36 Bch2 £3 37 Ded, In both cases White wins. 33...@h7 34 Ded Eh8 35 Exc6?! Simpler was 35 Exd8! @xd8 36 e6 fxe6 37 Wal and White wins. 35...h5 36 e6 Wh6 37 Xc3 We2 38 e7 Bd1 39 Wh2 Wxh2 40 Exh2 Ze1 41 Ad6 Hb8 42 Axt7+ Wh7 43 Heb 2.44 44 Dg5+ 1-0 Game 6 E.Sveshnikov-H.Stefansson Liepaya (rapid) 2004 If you compare the dates of this game with the previous one, you will see that Grandmaster Sveshnikkov has had a last- ing passion for this rather harmless line. 1 e4 &5 2 D3 Ac6 3 Bcd Ac5 4 c3 AEG 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 d5 7 2b5 Dea 8 cxd4 2b4+!? Z Fe EE This simple move (patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check) gives Black a sound and rather solid game. 9 242 White has no road leading to an advantage. Sveshnikov has had to realise this in his practical games, where he also tried 9 Dbd2 2d7 10 0-0 0-0 and now at least two moves in his games: a) 11 Dxed dxe4 12 Ags Dxe5 13 Wad Qxb5 14 Webs Ad3 15 Le3 We7 16 £3 6 17 Wed b5! and Black is at least equal, E.Sveshnikov-M.Krasenkow, Vil- nius 1997, b) 11 Bd3 BFS 12 We2 Bxd2 13 Bxd2 Bg62! 14 Bc3 We7 15 Rael gave White a slightly advantage in 1.Sveshnikov-S.Azarov, Minsk 2000, but surely he realised that it was easy for Black to improve, as he deviated in the current game. The improvement could be 13..2¢41 14 Sxed dxet 15 Wxed Qxf3 16 Wx63 Wxd4 17 &c3 Wed with equality. 9...2xd2 10 2xc6+ bxc6 11 Abxd2 5 WN Z ZB bey 'y a 2 "LA ‘ oN ER 12 a3 12 dxc5 has been played, but I prefer not to go into the games and instead pre- sent 12...0-01, which is a new idea. (Ok, ok, here is some old stuff, but then you have to eat your greens! 12..@xc5 13 We2 2b6 14 Weo+ Wa7 15 Wxa8 0-0 16 Ecl c5 17 Wh8 226 18 Wdo Ws 19 dl We2+ 20 Sc2 Wa3+ with equality according to Macieja, or 14...8d7 15 20First Steps in the Italian Game Wxd5 0-0 16 0-0 Be6 17 We6 Wa3 with some compensation) 13 Wad Bb8 14 0-0 Rxc5 15 Db3 Qb6 16 Beal 5 and as I see it Black is slightly better. 12...2xd2+ 13 Wxd2 13...c4! This move might seem surprising, but it gives Black easy equality. Optically it looks as if the pawn is placed on a wrong coloured square, given Black’s light-squared bishop, but if we look slightly further than automatic dogmatism, we will see that the pawns will actually support the bishop rather than restrict it. Also, the f3-knight was probably hoping to occupy one of the dark squares in the centre, and this is now nothing but a dream. One practical example saw the reasonable alternative 13...2g4 14 dxc5 B.xf3 15 exf3 0-0. Here White went wrong with 16 62, as after 16...2e8 17 f4, Black should deviate from B.Macieja-A.Aleksandrov, European ‘Team Championship 2003, with 17..Wd6 18 0-0-0 WxeG+ 19 Sb1 Hab8 and be slightly better. If instead 16 0-0-0 We7! 17 Wd4 Habs 18 Hd2 Eps and Black has counterplay. 14 0-0 ibs! Black keeps an eye on the b2-pawn, which gives him good counterplay. 15 Ufe1 0-0 16 We2 g6 17 Dd2 Wg5! 18 Xe3 Wg4 19 We3 cB 20 D3 oxd4 21 Dxd4 Eb6 22 Haet Or 22 b4 cxb3 23 Dxb3 Leb 24 Dd4 Efb8 with equality 22...2e6 23 h3 Wh4 24 Ad1 Etb8 25 Be2 38b7 %-% 21italian Game and Evans Gambit Summary To conclude quickly on the material in this chapter: after 4 3 then 4...We7 has a good reputation, but probably unjustly. Games 3 and 4 contain some ideas leading to an advantage for White, which should be of practical importance to anyone playing the Ital- jan Game. In the last two games of the chapter we investigated Sveshnikov’s pet line with 6 €5, which is theoretically quite harmless. Obviously the Russian grandmaster plays this because he feels that he gets good practical chances, but against a well-prepared opponent this is probably not the case. But then again, how many people are prepared for every obscure line after 1 e4 5 - ? Not many I suppose... 1 04 e5 2 D3 Ac6 3 Bcd Lc5 4 3 (D) M6 4, Wfe7 5. d4 &.b6 6 0-0 d6 (D) Tad — Game 3 Th3 —Game 4 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 d5 7 2b5 Ded 8 cxd4 (D) 8...8b6 — Game 5 8...Sb4+ — Game 6 22CHAPTER THREE The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game 1 e4 e5 2 D3 Ac6 3 2c4 Lc5 4 c3 M6 5 d4 exd4 In this chapter we will look at the positions arising after 1 4 e5 2 DB Acé 3 Lict Bc5 4 c3 DEG 5 dd exd4, In the first two games we examine the Miller Attack 6 cxd4 &b4+ 7 Dc32. This gambit is over a hundred years old and is one of those lovely antiques which are fragile and break into pieces if you treat them a lite bit harshly. In this chapter we shall see that Black equalises casily in Game 7, where White afterwards fail to prove equality; and in Game 8 we shall see the official refutation 13..h6! (but also 13...0-0, which seems to lead to a draw by force). Surely the Moller Attack is having tough times in this computer age. In Games 9 and 10 we shall examine 7 2d2, which is every bit as harmless as it looks. We will see that Black can force equality, but then will have to allow White the chance of a draw by repetition; or Black can accept a slightly worse position, but play for a win. For tactical reasons such a line can at times prove reasonable for White. Van der Doel’s weak play in Game 9 failed to exploit the pay-offs of this tactic, but the idea still works. In Game 11 we shall look at another dubious gambit, 6 0-0, which can be met cither by 6..xe4 with simple equality (or a little more), and the greedy 6...dx¢3!2, which in many sources is referred to as bad, but actually gives Black reasonable chances. Game 7 Comp. Fritz 6-V.Anand Man vs. Machine, Frankfurt (rapid) 1999 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Acé 3 d4 This game has a slightly unusual move order. Normally we reach the position at move 5 by 3 S.c4 &c5 4.3 Df6 5 d4. By the way, 5 d4 is the most logical move here, since 5 0-0 leaves White struggling to make sense of his position after the equalising 5..xe4. And 5 b4 does not look right either, as it leads to a position from the Evans Gambit, which is not particularly good for White. This leaves 23Italian Game and Evans Gambit only 5 d3 as a serious alternative, which is of practical value, though not really dangerous for Black, We will examine this move in the next chapter. 3...exd4 4 £04 25 5 c3 D6 These lines might look very sharp and dangerous, but the reality is that the fore: ing nature of the position quite often leads them into a draw... 6 cxd4 2b4+ ‘This check is highly logical, and other moves are simply bad. For example: 6..8b6? 7 d5 Ae? 8 25 Ags 9 d6 cxd6 10 exd6 Dc6 11 KyS DFG 12 0-0 and White is much better. ‘The main position. White has two sensible moves here 7 Dc37! Objectively speaking, this move is weak; but then objectivity has little to do with the ways of the world, who is elected president in the US, who is selected for junior tournaments, and how an egg should be prepared... 7 @\c3 is dangerous in practice, if Black is not well prepared for it, White’s third option, 7 @f121, is known as the Krakow Variation, In 1909, chess players from Krakow played a thematic tournament in this line, investigating White’s attacking chances, Now we know that 7 @f1 is somewhat dubious, and that with logical play Black should be able to get a good opening. Let’s look at two typical options: a) 7....Axe4?! might seem tempting, but all White’s play is based on this over- optimistic move. Taking the pawn is unnecessarily risky, and probably even plain bad. White can now seize the initiative by simple means: 8 d5 Ae7 9 Wd4 Afo 10 gs Deo 11 Abd2 h6 12 Belt 8 13 d3 Bc7? (though 13..2xd2 14 Bxd2 with a clear advantage to White was not particularly attractive either) 14 &xg6! hxg5 15 @ec5 and White was winning in F.Marshall-A.Burn, Ostend 1905. b) The logical reaction so often in these classical positions is to strike in the centre. Here 7...d5! 8 exd5 Dxd5 is at least slightly better for Black. e.g. 9 D3 Le6 10 We2 Kxc3 11 bxc3 Dxc3 12 Wel Dd5 13 Ba3 a6 14 Eel Wa7 and bishops are _ insufficient compensation for the pawn, Bartmansky- Batik, correspondence 1910. 7...Dxe4 8 0-0 &xc3 Black needs to go directly for a refuta- the two 24The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game tion of the Méller, or he will quickly end up in trouble. Here 8...0-02 is weak because of 9 d5 2xc3 10 bxc3 Ac? 11 Het Aro 12 dot and White is much better. 8..Axc3 is possible though, and then 9 bxc3 leaves us with a branching: a) 9..2xc3 10 23! d5! (but not 10..d6? 11 Bel &a5 12 Wad a6 13 Sd5 Lb6 14 Excét 2d7 15 Hel+ L£8 16 Bxd6 and White wins according to Keres; or if 10..Wf62! 11 Het Sb4 12 Bxb4 Axb4 13 Hel+ &d8 14 Wd2 and White is just better) 11 &b5 Qxal 12 Het+ Be6 13 Wad Bc8 14 De5 (White can easily go wrong here, eg. 14 Bxe6+? fxeb 15 Acs Wd6! 16 Bxc6+ bxc6 17 Bxd6 exd6 18 Axc6 Ee7 and Black wins, while after 14 Exal?! f6! White has problems to prove compensation) 14..WE6 15 2xc6+ (if 15 Bxal 7 16 Bel a8 17 Axcot bxc6 18 @e7+ Wxe7 19 Bxe7 Sxe7 20 Lxc6 Bxc6 21 Wxc6 and White must now fight for a draw) 15..bxc6 16 Axc6 2c3 17 Dxa7+ Ld8 18 DAc6+ with perpetual check. b) 9...d5! is even simpler. After 10 exb4 dxe4 11 Belt De7 12 We2 Be6 13 Bg5 Was (13...c6 14 Ded Wd5 15 Bxe7 bxe7 16 @xc4 gives White compensation for the pawn) 14 &xe7 Bxe7 15 We2 £6 16 D_5! White must play energetically to keep the balance) 16...fxg5 17 He5 Wxd4 18 Rael Hack 19 Hxe6+ ded7 20 Bat Wadl+ 21 Wxdit+ Sxe6 22 Wes+ Sto 23 b4 pxh4 24 Wxh4+ So6 25 West to 26 W4+ Be6 with a draw in O.Gadia- J.De Souza Mendes, Brazilian Champion- ship 1961. 9 d5!? This is Miller’s idea; invented in 1898. After the rather pointless 9 bxc32! d5 Black has a perfect game, Against Lasker, in their 1896 return match, Steinitz tried to play without pieces, He also played without any hint of success or indication that he was a World Champion. Of course he was also in the later part of his life and surely without the energy of his younger years. The game continued 10 $03? dxe4 11 Bel £5 12 Dd2 WE7 13 Dsc4 feed 14 Exet Wt6 and White does not have any form of compensation for the piece, W.Steinitz-Em.Lasker, Moscow match 1896. 9...De5 This variation is not as well known in the West as 9...2£6 (as seen in the next 25Italian Game and Evans Gambit game). Nevertheless, it is quite safe and gives Black a very slight edge without any risk at all. For those happy with a superior position as Black within the first ten moves, and who does not necessarily have to refute their opponent’s madness, this is a very safe choice. a) 9..e7? looks safe as well, but it only takes a few moves to shatter the illusion. After 10 bxc3 0-0 11 Bet fo 12 46 cxd6 13 &a3 White’s attack is very strong. b) 9...£a5 is also playable, though not as good as the text move. Now 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 Aes Ad6 gives us two interesting options: Sk ns BORG MG RA bl) 12 Wear WE 13 b4 S&xb4 (13...Axe4 14 Axc4 Rxb4 15 Vb2 transposes; not 14,.,Wixal?? 15 Hel+ 28 16 We2 and White wins) 14 &b2 @xc4 15 Dxc4 We6 16 Hfel+ and, according to Mller, White has a promising attack. The analysis could continue 16..$f8 17 Wh4 £6 18 De5 fxe5 19 Wab4t d6 20 Bxe5 c5 21 Wh3 We7 22 He3 Wxb3 23 axb3 and White has compensation enough for draw, but hardly anything more. b2) The simple exchange 12 Axf7!? Dsf7 13 Qxt7+ Sxt7 14 Whs+ SoS 15 Wsa5 is more interesting, In my opinion, White has some advantage here, Black has a pawn more, but also problems with his king’s position, while the opposite- coloured bishops should help facilitate an attack. 10 bxc3 Axed 11 dd 11...0-0 Anand probably felt little doubt in the practicality of this move. Black is safely developed and White’s initiative is already stalling. After 11...2cd6? Black would be made suffer for his greed with the surprising sequence 12 Wxe7 Wo 13 Wsfo! (Black’s extra piece is doing little in the defence) 13..Axf6 14 Bett Dfe4 (14..Hf8? 15 &h6+ Sg8 16 Hed Afed 17 Het and White wins) 15 Ad2 £5 16 £3 0-0 17 fxe4 Dxe4 18 Dxes fxe4 19 Hxed and White is at least slightly better here. However, Black can choose which knight White can take by protecting the better placed of the two. I firmly believe that 11...f5! is the best way forward. Now play could continue 12 Wxc4 d6 13 Ad4 0.0 14 3 Dc5 15 Ba3 b6 16 Bxc5 bxc5 17 Bc6 WEG 18 Bfel 247 19 He7 He7 20 Bact Exe? 21 Bxe7 Mads! and Black is 26The Méller Attack and the Classical Italian Game for preference. 12 Wxe4a Dd6 ‘This is stronger than 12...b5?! when White can play 13 a4 c6 14 dxc6 d5 15 Wad3 bxa4 16 Ags with the initiative. 13 Wa3 b6 14 203 Wie 15 Wada Y White has probably enough compensation to make a draw, but he (it!) will also have to prove it in practice, something computers can have great difficulties doing in this kind of position. Instead after 15 Hfel &2b7 16 De5 Ead8 17 Dgs Wes 18 DAcS Hfes 19 Bxd6 cxd6 20 D3 Bc8 Black is slightly better. 15.,.Wxd4 16 Dxd4 2b7 17 2xd6 cxd6 18 AFS g6 19 DAxd6 &xd5 20 Bfel Se6 21 f4 a6 22 a4 Ha7 23 Beb1 White is unable to build a fortress. But even if he was, this is a dark spot for computers, which do not understand the concept of fortresses at all, as their hori- zon are too short. They cannot understand that no improvements can be made to the position, ever, as they cling to what they can calculate, After 23 Hab1?! Bb8 24 c4 Hc7 25 Hed Hc5 26 shez Sef8 27 Hd4 the conquest of the fortress is easy: 27..<8€7 28 Be3 Ld5! 29 Hxd5 Bxd5 30 cxd5 &xd6 and Black will win this ending with the passed pawn and good position of his rook. 23...8b8 24 ab? The computer can see that he will win back his pawn in the short term; but the grandmaster understands that, in the long, term, Black will activate his rook, when the white position is beyond salvation. After the stronger 24 c4 He7 25 a5 Bc6 26 Exb6 Ebxb6 27 axb6 Exb6 28 c5 Hc6 29 Ha5 White would have kept good drawing chances. 24...b5 25 c4 b4 26 Bad b3 27 Had He7 28 Haxb3 Exb3 29 Exb3 Hc5 30 &Nb7?! Now the white pieces will be lost in the far corner of the board. Instead 30 ef2 would have offered more resistance. 30...fxa5 should be enough to win for Black, but only after a hard fight. 30...Hxe4 31 Bb6 Hc2 32 Ad6 &f8 33 Exa6 Sd5! ‘The a-pawn is nothing but a dissident under state control. 34 93 Rg2+ 35 df1 Exh2 36 Ha7 36 &b6 Ha2 37 a6 @e7 and Black wins 27italian Game and Evans Gambit as the a-pawn cannot escape. 36...2¢6 37 DcB Hy2 38 Ab6 Sxg3 39 Axd7+ &xd7 40 Bxd7 Za3 41 Ha7 Bf3+ 42 dg2 Uxt4 43 a6 Ba4 44 Ba8+ &g7 45 &h2 h5 0-1 Game & J.Fang-A.lvanov Manchester, USA 1999 1 e4 eS 2 AF3 Ac6 3 cd Oc5 4 c3 446 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 2b4+ 7 \c3?! Dxe4 8 0-0 2xc3 9 d5 B16 Just as in the previous variation, White has chances for equality. But this is as far as it goes if Black plays correctly. 9...2£6 has been the main line of the Miller At- tack for more than a hundred years, and despite short-lived resurrections of the White initiative, Black has always been able to solve his problems more than sat- isfactorily. 10 Hel De7 10...0-02! 11 Hxe4 De7 12 d6l is a thematic trick, when after 12...cxd6 13 2g5 Doo 14 Wa5 White is slightly better ac cotding to grandmaster Unzicker. 11 Bxed d6 12 295 White is trying to ‘launch’ the knight into the enemy position like an avant- garde soldier, who will clear the way for the remains of the army. This is probably the soundest strategy here. A little sideline that sometimes is seen at amateur level, and which can lead to inspiring victories, is 12 g4?, but I do not believe in it. This ‘bayonet attack’ is remi- niscent of an infantry assault on a bunker in which everyone has a machine gun... After normal moves for Black like 12...0-0 13 g5 Se5 14 Axes B15 15 He3 dxe5 16 Exe5 Wd7 we can conclude that the white king will have to surrender quite soon. 12.,.8xg5 Black has no choice but to go into this forcing line. On 12...8.f57! White has an annoying check in 13 S&bS+, and after 13.818 14 Be3 Bxe5 15 Axed h6 16 DNB the initiative looks truly dangerous. 13 DxgS 13...n6! This was the improvement for Black that shifted the variation from ‘not too dangerous’ to ‘downright dubious’. The other main line starts with 13...0-0, when 14 @sh7! is the only chance for a real attack. So far it has been believed to 28The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game force a draw, though as we shall see this is not completely clear. 14..@2xh7!? is the sharpest reply and feels best (though 4..Qf5 15 Bxe7 Wxe7 16 Dxf8 Bxf8 with equality is also possible). Now White continues with 15 Wh5+ @g8 16 Hh4, and here Black has the choice between 16..f6 17 2d3 £5 18 &c2 He8 19 Het BEB 20 Rb5 Ld7 21 Heo Axb5 22 Efor with equality according to Perez, or to enter a much larger maze with 16...651 when we have the following options: a) 17 Het?! has the idea of 17...Be8? 18 Heo! 8 19 Hea Qd7 20 Hest! Dgs if 20...€2g8 21 Bg3 wins) 21 Hxt5+ Ato 22 HAG+ oxf6 (or 22...Whf6 23 Bxf6+ oxf6 24 Wh8+ de7 25 We7+ Sd8 26 Wxfo+ e827 h4 and White wins) 23 Wh8+ SFT 24 Wh7+ LAB 25 Le! Bxe6 26 dxe6 Hxe6 27 Wh8t+ de7 28 Wo7+ de 29 2hS mate. However, Black can play more strongly with 17..Dg6! 18 Bh3 Heo! 19 Hy3 (if 19 Wh7+ G17 20 Heb DB 21 Whs+ 96 22 Wh8 2xe6 23 dxe6+ Exe6 24 Bxeo+ @xe6 and Black wins) 19..Ae5 20 4 ®T 21 Heb, and now after 21...d7! Black retains his material advantage, instead of 21..2xe6? 22 dxe6 We7 23 exf7+ Bxf7 24 Bh3 Welt 25 21 Here 26 Wh7+ We7 27 WxfS+ bys 2-2 A.Nogueira-M.Valverde Lopez, spondence 1977. So this line does not seem to be playable for White. b) 17 Bh3? is Paul Keres’ idea, but it does not stand the test of our time: computer analysis, eg, 17..f4 18 Wh7+ @f7 19 Whs+ go! Gf 19..g8 20 Wh7+ with equality) 20 Wh7+ @f6 21 Wh4+ g5 22 Wh6t Ag6 23 Hh5 Bhs 24 Wxgs+ e7 25 2d3 Wxg5 26 Bxg5 Bho 27 Ect 6 28 Exgot+ Expo 29 &xgo Gxgo and Black should win. ©) The best option by far is 17 Wh7+ £7 18 Bho Bgs 19 Bel corre- when Black has: cl) 19...2d72? loses to the fabulous 20 Heeo!! S&.xe6 21 dxe6+ WeB 22 Heo d5 23 Bxg7 Wado 24 Exg8+ Axes 25 We7+ dB 26 AS! (or 26 Wxy8t+ Bc? 27 We7+ Sd8 28 Sxd5 We7 29 West Wes 30 WeS+ We7 31 Wxf5) 26...c6 27 Wxg8+ Be7 28 Wxa8 cxb5 29 Wxb7+ Bxe6 30 Wsb5 and White wins. 2) 19.828 is met by 20 h3 &d7 21 Bhe3 Dc8 22 Kd3 g6 23 hd Hy? 24 Whs+ Bg8 with equality according to Sozin. 29italian Game and Evans Gambit 3) 19...W£8! is the best chance according to my analysis, Here White can try to reorganise his troops with 20 Hh3 and then: 31) 20...$d7?! (complicated but infe- rior) 21 Bhe3 Ag6! (necessary if Black is to play for a win; certainly not 21... £e8? 22 Be2!! when Black has no decent defence against 23 S2h5) 22 He! (apparently forced; if 22 Wh5? Hh8 23 He7+ Wryxe7 24 Exe7+ @£6!! and Black wins, ot 22 By3 Dra 23 Wh p5! 24 Bxgs Hxgs 25 Wxg5 Deo and Black’s advantage is close to decisive) 22...8xe6 23 dxe6+ Be7 24 Wxg6 Bh8 25 Wy3 co when White retains some compensation. 32) 20..a2f61l is one of those truly stunning moves which a computer can sometimes find. The idea is very simple: White is not allowed a check on €7 in the most forcing lines, e.g. if 21 Khe3? Bhs! and Black wins instantly. Instead White can try 21 Wh4+ g5 22 Wd4+ So6 23 Wai g4 24 Bhe3 Be7 25 We2 Ags 26 He8 We? and here Black will win because of 27.26 and White has no counterplay for the piece. I am not too eager to risk my reputation by giving a clear evaluation of this line, since maybe White has a way to strengthen his attack earlier on? I believe in Black’s position, but one unpre- dictable tactic could turn everything up- side down. And anyway, White can possibly improve earlier with 20 &b5! Zh8 21 Wxh8 gxh6 22 Wh7+ &f6 23 Bxe7 Wxe7 24 Wesh6+ and equality according to Keres. It looks as if the simple 20...26!? questions this, but here White can play 21 Heed! axb5 22 Bhi6+ Se8 23 BxfB+ HxfB 24 Bxe7+! Gxe7 25 Wxg7+ BA? 26 WeS+ S68 27 Wd8+ Sp7 28 We5+ Bh7 29 Whs+ dg8 30 WeS+ Hp7 31 Wd8+ &h7 32 We8! and there is seemingly no way to escape the perpetual check. So maybe 13..0-0 does give White a draw after all, 14 We2 Alternatives: a) 14 @b5+2! Bd7 15 We2 Axb5 16 Wxb5+ Wa7 17 We2 defBt 18 AMS Dxd5 and White has no compensation. b) 14 Wh5 0-0 15 Bact Df (simpler is 15..Ag6! 16 DB Wee 17 Ads Bd7 when a pawn is a pawn) 16 £3 (or 16 Dh3l? Qd7 17 AFA with the initiative, eg, 17..Me5 18 Wxe5 hxg5 19 Ae6 fxe6 20 dxe6 Se8 21 e7+ He7 22 £4 etc) 16...Wf6? (and here 16...26! 17 Wet 27, though White has some compensation for the material after 18 B4e2 WF 19 Rd3 Bae8 20 Wb4 Bxe2 21 Hxe2) 17 gf g6 18 Wh3 Ag7 19 Wxho Wx 20 Hea DES 21 Wexf8+ Bxf8 22 Hxf3 and White wins, _J.Majewski-P.Bielak, dence 1992. ©) 14 Axf7?! Sxf7 15 W3+ AGS (not 15.8298? 16 Hael or 15...92962? 16 Exe7 and White wins, while if 15.215? 16 Bael g6 17 g4 with a strong attack) 16 correspon- 30The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game e4 Hest Gf 16..Wy5?! 17 bhi Bs 18 xf QxfS 19 Bei Weo 20 He 96 21 Rd3 He7 22 Bxf5 gxfS 23 Wh3 bo 24 Wc2 and White has the initiative) 17 gxf5 <£p8 and Black is better. 14...hxg5 15 Hel 2e6 16 dxe6 16 16...£52 17 Eid4 c6 gives equality according to ECO, but after the not too difficult 18 Wd2! d5 19 Wxg5 Wado 20 Bh4 0-0-0 21 2d3 White is better. 17 Ze3 c6 18 2h3 If 18 2d3 We7 19 h3 d5 20 b4 a5 21 b5 c5 and Black is much better. 18...xh3 19 gxh3 g6 20 Wd2 After 20 We3 Wa5 21 Bai Wes 22 Wh3 bd 23 RFl Wes 24 Bas Bas 25 He3 We5 Black is close to winning. 20...d5 21 Wc3 d4 22 Wi3 WaS 23 Be2 Ws Black is close to winning here too. 24 Wa3 Wta! Stronger than 24...Wb1+?! which could lead to 25 Sg2 DFS 26 £3 Dh4+? (here 26..éc1 with an attack is still OK, though not as good as the game move) 27 $2 Whi 28 Wado! with sudden counterplay. 25 &d3 £5 26 We5 b6 27 Wed 0-0-0 28 a4 Ehs! Now everything is over and done with. 29 a5 Exh3 30 Hel b5 31 We2 Wxh2+ 32 £41 Wh1+ 33 we2 WI3+ 34 ed2 Wxf2+ 35 &d1 Wxc2+ 36 sbxc2 &c7 37 b4 Ld6 0-1 Game 9 E.Van den Doel-I.Sokolov Dutch Championship, Leeuwarden 2004 1 e4 eB 2 AF3 Ac6 3 &c4 &c5 43 M6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 &b4+ 7 2d2 Natural and sound. 7...Rxd2+ Though very logical, this is not Black’s only option in this position. He has also tried: 37Italian Game and Evans Gambit a) 7..Axe4 8 Bxb4 Axb4 9 Axf7+ (otherwise White has nothing, eg. 9 Wb3 5.10 Wrxb4 dxe4 11 0-0 Wa6 12 Wxc4 0-0 13 Dc3 with equality, but even this is not too dangerous) 9...@xf7 10 Wb3+ d5 (Black can also try 10...f8 11 Wxb4+ We? 12 Wxe7+ Sxe7 13 0-0 with equal ity) 11 De5+ Le6! (but not 11.62 12 £3 Ddo 13 Wxb4 BFS 14 0-0 and White is better) 12 Wxb4 c5 13 Wa3 cxd4 14 DB Wo 15 0-0 SF7 16 Aed+ (not 16 ®bd2?! He8 17 Wh3 DAxd2 18 Wxd5+ Be6 19 Wh5+ Bes 20 DAxd2 Wxb2 21 £3 Qxa2 and Black is close to winning, G.Lee-G.Flear, British Championship 2002) 16...8e6 (again 16.826? is strongly met by 17 £3! @xe5 18 fxed dxe4 19 We7+ Sd5 20 Wys+ Sao 21 Wear sbd7 22 Wxe4 and Black has a hard life, while if 18..d3+ 19 @h1 dxe4 20 We7+ e6 21 Ac3 Ehgs 22 Hacl and White wins) Vi, Y ta and now White can choose between 17 ®B with equality, and 17 Ad3, which gives compensation is the following 17..e8 18 Hel BE7 19 £3 DAd6 20 Exes Bxe8 21 Dd2 OF5 22 Belt G7 23 Hes. b) 7.5? is a little known, but decent alternative. After 8 exd5 &xd2+ White can vary from the standard 9 “Abxd2 with 9 Wsd2, though after 9...Dxd5 10 0-0 0-0 11 BWe3 Ace? 12 Kfel 6 13 Det ho 14 h3 Q£5 Black has equality, A Schwenk LKrasenkova, Baden Baden 1993. 8 Abxd2 d5 8..Axe4 looks tempting, but White re acts energetically with 9 d5! Zxd2 10 Wxd2 De7 11 d6 cxd6 12 Wxd6 b5 (or 12.065 13 Wes+ We7 14 0-0-0 with an attack according to Makarychev) 13 &b3 0-0 14 0-0 a5 15 Bfel a4 16 &c2 Ago 17 &xg6 hxg6 18 We3 and White had compensation in A.Tzermiadianos- V.Kotronias, Athens 1998. Also after the even more tempting 18 He7!? Ha6 19 Wb4 d5 20 eS f6 21 He3 Was 22 Wat Ed8 23 Bact White has compensation for the pawn. 9 exd5 Axd5 x 7a Y ye (a IMG, 10 Wb3 Some players are afraid of 10 0-0 0-0 11 Ae5!2, but Black has two sensible ways of ensuring himself an equal game: a) 11..Dxe5 12 dxe5 De4 13 Det We? 14 Wad Hus 15 Wes Wxc5 16 Axcd b6 17 Bad1 25 18 Dab c5 19 Ac? Babs with equality, T.Lovholt-R.Monner Sans, correspondence 1995. 32The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game b) 11..Axd4 12 Ab3 Axb3 13 Bxd5 Wo! (13..Axal? 14 Bxf7+ Shs 15 Whs is a famous attack that even defeated the great Capablanca) 14 &xf7+ (not 14 @sxf? Dxal! and White has nothing) 14..2xf7 15 Wxb3 Wxe3! and Black had equalised in P.Figueiredo-A.Pereira, Vila Nova de Gaia 2004, because of 16 Hael Reb, 10...Ace7 This is a little bit passive, after which White manages to organise some small pressure. The stronger 10...2)a5! is inves: tigated in the next game, However, the text move does has the advantage of de- aying White the possibility of repeating the position, as he can after 10.25. 11 0-0 0-0 12 Efe1 c6 13 Aed AbE 13...Wb6 is best met by 14 Dc3 (not 14 Wad Bod 15 DeS Wadd 16 Ddo Leo 17 @®xb7 Dgo with equality, ESveshnikov- V.Chekhov, Sochi 1983) 14..Wxb3_ 15 Bxb3 Bg4 16 Dxdd AxdS 17 Sxd5 cxd5 18 Be7 and White has a slight advantage according to Makarychev. 14 243 White is slightly better here as the b6- knight is pa 7 14,..Ded5 15 Dc5 Ab 16 Kaci?! ‘This allows Black to become active a bit too easily. 1 suggest 16 We2l? as an improvement. Then after 16..h6 17 a3 Df4 18 Bh7+ Bhs 19 Ret Who 20 b4 Bd8 21 Bact White keeps some pressure. 16...Af4 17 &b1 Or 17 Be4 Bed 18 b3 Bxf3 19 Wef3 Wes 20 Sh2 Kfd8 21 Aed1 with equality. 17...W16 18 De5 Wigs 19 Wt3 16 Black is seemingly not completely fo- cused on the need to secure counterplay immediately. Best was 19...&h3! 20. g3 DFAS and Black equalises. For example, after the aggressive 21 g4 Df4 22 Ded Who 23 g5 Wh4 24 We3 Wrg3+ 25 hxg3 Deb 26 He3 &£5 and Black is fine. 20 Aed3 Abd5 21 Axf4 Axf4 22 h4 Whe 23 g3 Ad5 24 Red DG 25 Wb3+ &h8 26 Wa3 ZaB 27 We3? A strange mistake. After 27 2£3! White is much better, preparing the inva- sion of the seventh rank, and keeping. all the black pieces tied down. 27..Wxe3 28 Exe3 Xe8 29 cel De4 30 K3e2 Ad6 31 2d3 Exe2 32 Hxe2 &g8 33 2c2 Now White is looking for a draw. In- stead after 33 &g2 b6 34 Aco Bb7 Black 33Italian Game and Evans Gambit has counterplay. 33...b6 34 &b3+ Sf8 35 De6+ Sixe6 36 Exe6 DFS 37 Exc6 Axd4 38 Ee7 Axb3 39 axb3 Hd8 40 Exa7 Hd3 41 a3 b5 42 b4 Rd4 You really need to try hard to lose an ending like this. The inactive placement of the rook is a good place to start. 43 Mb3 hS 44 dg2 S745 Sf3 Aca 46 ke3 95 Z Co Y 47 142 This merely creates a lot of weaknesses in his own camp. Instead after 47 hxg5 fxg5 48 Hc3 Hxb4 49 Bes Lf6 50 Beo+ BS 51 Hc5+ Spt 52 13+ Gxg3 53 Bxg5+ Gh4 54 Het Bxb2 55 £4 Bb3+ 56 Bed White is safe. 47...gxh4 48 gxh4 dg6 49 He3 Xxb4 50 Hc5 Eb3+ 51 wed Exb2 52 15+ &h6 53 Bc6? White could do much better with 53 3 Eb 54 hy} Hodt 55 Lh3 b4 56 Eco &g7 57 Hc7+ SFB 58 Bb7 Hed 59 Sg3 He3+ 60 Hf2 b3 61 Bho Be7 62 Be6+ 47 63 Hb6 Bh3 when he can finish up in the endgame with & and h- pawns, one that offers excellent drawing chances. 53...2b4+ 54 £f3? This makes it easier, but it was already too late to save the game. If 54 &d5 Eixh4 55 Bxfo+ Gg5 56 He Bh2 57 £6 bg6 58 Bed Hert 59 Sf4 b4 60 O38 Bel 61 Bb8 Xb1 62 Ebo b3 63 g3 h4+ 64 Bh3 b2 65 Gh2 h3 66 £7+ x7 67 Bb3 &f6 and Black wins. 54...Bxh4 55 Exf6+ &g5 56 Hg6+ &xf5 57 Hb6 Hb4 0-1 Game 10 J.Marsden-J.Sutton Correspondence 2001 1 e4 eS 2 AF3 Ac6 3 Lc4 2c5 43 O46 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 2b4+ 7 2d2 &xd2+ 8 Abxd2 d5 9 exd5 DAxd5 10 Wb3 10...2a5! ‘This move secures Black equality, but also allows White to repeat the position. 11 Wa4+ Acé Forced. After 11..c6?! 12 &xd5 Wxd5 13 Bel! Black is in trouble, e.g. 13..WbS 14 Wexb5 cxb5 15 d5 ¥e7 16 b4 Acd 17 Asxc4 bxc4 18 Hxcd €d6 19 0-0 and White has a clear advantage. 12 2b5 12 Wb3!? would repeat the position, 34The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game but here White is looking for more. 12...8d7 After the anti-positional 12...0-02! 13 Rxc6 bxc6 14 0-0 Af4 15 Bfel Leb 16 Wxc6 White is much better, J.Bosch- D Pirrot, German Bundesliga 1997. 13 0-0 White needs to get his king into safety before it is too late. After 13 Wb32! We7+ 14 Bf! Be6! White does not have compensation for the bad position of his king, ESveshnikov-E.Mortensen, Leningrad 1984. 13...0-0 14 Bfe1 a6 15 21 2f5 This is better than 15..0cb4 16 Wh3 B65 17 Bacl a5 18 a3 a4 19 We4 Dc6 20 Ws Bc8 21 Ded Bad 22 Wa3 265 23 Wa2 and White has a small edge, P.Morssink-E.Van det Bij, correspondence 1990. 16 Hact Also after 16 Wb3!? Eb8 17 Bad1 Wao 18 a3 there is nothing but equality. 16...Db6 17 Wa3! White tries to sacrifice a pawn to get the initiative, 17...Dxd4 18 2xd4 Wxd4 19 Db3 Maybe there was more play in 19 &¢3!? ‘Wado 20 We5 with compensation. 19...Wd6 20 Wxd6 cxd6 21 Hed1 d5 22 Dc& Hfc8 23 Axb7 He2 24 Ke2 Bc7 25 Das Ad7 26 Db3 Ab5 %-% Game 11 D.Hergott-G.Garcia Linares 1994 1 4 e5 2 AFB DAc6 3 2c4 2c5 4c3 M6 5 d4 exd4 6 0-0 This romantic gambit does not offer White any chances for an advantage. Ac- tually at times he needs to be careful not to be worse. 6...Dxe4 Others: a) 6..d52! is very dangerous. After 7 exdS Axd5 8 Belt Be6 9 Ags White has the advantage, e.g, 9...0-0 10 Wd3 g6 11 Exe6! fxe6 12 Wh3 We7 13 Wrxeo+ Wxeo 14 Axe’ and White was better in Y.Estrin-S.Letic, correspondence 1967. b) 6..d3 has been played in some recent games, though mainly by players wanting to avoid main lines they were unfamiliar with, White has a slight plus after almost any move. One line could be 75d58 xd3 Dod 9 We2 We7 10 £4 35Italian Game and Evans Gambit and Black has no easy way of improving his position, as after the possibly best 10..f6 11 exf6 Wxe2 12 Bxe2 Axo White should secure a clear edge with 13 Axcil. ©) 6..dxe3 looks risky, but after 7 ¢51? 5! Black is doing all right. 8 &b3 can be met strongly with 8..c2! 9 &xc2 Ae4 10 3 Axc3 11 bxc3 Be4 when White's compensation is in doubt, J.Blauert- D.Belotelov, Budapest 1997, 7 cxd4 d5! The only move. 7...2e7?! 8 d5 Abs 9 Het Adé (or 9... AFG? 10 d6 exd6 11 25, 0-0 12 Exe7! Wxe7 13 Ac3 gives White a whirlwind initiative) 10 2d3 0-0 11 Ac3 and White has very pleasant compensation for the pawn, 8 dxcd No choice. 8...dxc4 White has tied several moves in this position, but none that leads to anything better than a struggle (often successful) for equality. 9 Wxds+ a) 9 We2 We7!? (more ambitious than the old move 9..Wd3, eg. 10 Het £5 11 Ac3 0-0 12 Aset feet 13 Wxet B15 Yao T.L.Petrosian-A.Grischuk, Internet (blitz) 2004; White is certainly not better here, but probably not worse either) 10 Wsced (if 10 Bet Axc5 11 Wxc4 Leb! and Black is better — Lukacs) 10...2xe5 (or 10...£5!? — Lukacs) and now 11 23! was suggested by Golod, intending 11...De6 12 e3 with compensation, but here 12...W/b4! seems to give White problems proving this. Black is a little better. b) 9 Wet We7 10 Ac3 Axc3 11 Wxc3 0-0 12 Wxet &e6 was pleasantly equal for Black in A.Pashikian-G.Sargissian, Armenian Championship 2003. And Black can probably create more problems for White with more ambitious play. 9...2xd8. 9...Axd8? is just wrong. After 10 Hel £5 11 Ags 0-0 12 Axed fred 13 Bxed Geb 14 Dc3 BAT 15 Qs Aco 16 Led White dominated in L.Barczay-L.Karsa, Hungarian Championship 1980. 10 Ed1+ White has also tried 10 @g5 Axg5 11 xg5+ £6 12 Hdl+ (after 12 24 Db4 13 Da3 Dd3 14 Bd! Bd7 15 Bg3 DAxb2 16 Hd4 @c8 17 Axed Dxcd 18 Bxcd a5 19 Bet Be8 Black was a pawn up with opposite-coloured bishops in D.Dumi- trache-Kr.Georgiev, Athens 1992; with accurate play and help from the opponent, Black managed to gain a full point) 12...2d7 13 &£4 Ab4! (the way to ensure an advantage) 14 Dc3 Ad3 15 Sg3 Dsc5 16 Bdt Deo 17 Bxct was JBlauert-G.Von — Bilow, — German Bundesliga 1998, when Black has many ways to try to win with his extra pawn. 10...d7 10..8e8 is met by 11 Hel £5 12 Ac3 and White is OK. 36The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game 11 Se3 After 11 a3 Dxc5 Black is just a pawn up, while 11 Ags Dxgs 12 &xg5+ Sc8 13 Dad Leb 14 Abs a6 15 Dds Axd4 16 Hxd4 a5 17 Hadi £6 18 2d2 Ba6 was J.Blauert-M.Hebden, London Lloyds Bank 1991. Again Black managed to convert his extra pawn to a full point despite the opposite-coloured bishops. As in the previous example, this can be at- tributed to the fact that Black was the stronger player, as well as to the position, 11.28 Black can also play for an advantage with 11...8e7!? and then after 12 Qbd2 (if 12 Da3 c3! 13 bxc3 Axc3 14 Bd3 Det 15 Het &e6 and Black had a slight edge in K.Honfi-G.Sax, Hungary — 1970) 12... Axd2 13 Axd2 Be6 14 Bdcl (as in F.Ramos Suria-ASorin, Seville 1989) 14..De5 15 f4 Dd3 16 He3 b5 17 exb6 axb6 18 Axc4 &xc4 19 Exc4 c5 allows White to regain his pawn, but his pieces are very badly coordinated and his position full of weaknesses. 12 ct 12 Da3 is weaker, when 12...c3 13 b3 He8 14 Hdcl Abs 15 Del Dds 16 Bd4 Dia 17 Bc2 BS 18 g3 Neb 19 Bxc3 4xc5 gave Black a very clear edge in P.Tishin-O.Karpeshov, Samara 2002. 18...Bd8 was even stronger, when Black is just winning, 12...2€6 13 a3 c3 14 bxe3 b6 Although natural, this seems a bit too carly. Instead 14...He8! was a useful wait- ing move, when White is desperately fighting for equality, and will probably be unsuccessful. 15 Ddd 2d7 16 Db3 16 £3 Dxc5 was a little better for Black in N.Kopylov-M.Govbinder, correspondence 1976. 16...2e8 17 Hab1 Sb8 18 Abs bxcd 19 Das? 19 Axc5! Axc5 20 &xc5 was necessary, when the gam after 20...8.5 21 Hb3 2c2 (21...He2!? 22 Dxa7+ Dxa7 23 Bxa7 Ha8 24 &d4 Haxa2 gives a bit more play, but it is still a dead draw) 22 Dxa7+! Dxa? 23 Bxa7 Bxb3 24 Vxb8 Bixa2 25 B.a7 with a draw. V oe v iN .e iN Ml 19...a6 19...&xb5! was very strong. White has no choice but to enter a ridiculous endgame with 20 Bxb5 a6 21 Axc6 axb5 22 Da5 when Black’s extra pawn should tell. 20 Axc6 2xc6 21 a3?! 37italian Game and Evans Gambit White had to play 21 Da7+ ed7 22 Exb8 Bxbs 23 3 Ado 24 Lxc5 when Black is better, but not too much. 21...Exb1 22 Axb1 Ad6 23 c4 AS 24 &xc5 Ze5 25 2f8 Ah4 26 &xg7 gS 27 216 Bxg2+ 28 &f1 Exh2 29 be2 AZ 30 Dc3 30 &c3 was slightly better, but the position is very bad for White anyway. 30...Rh6! 31 2hB Xe6+ 32 &d3 kd7 33 Ad5 h5 34 Bh1 h4 35 Hh3 &xd5 36 cxd5 Zh6 37 297 Eh5! act PeteAs cates ni a? “ am its NS a Black has a lot of nice options, eg. 37..g5 38 Bh2 Hd6 with a clear extra pawn. After the text White has no choice but to enter a bad rook endgame. 38 Exf3 h3 39 2e5 HxeS 40 Exh3 Bxd5+ 41 &c3 White has drawing chances, but in practical terms, it is hard to defend. 41...Bf5 42 d3+ dc6 43 £3 bd 44 d2 c5 45 Bb3+ wa4 46 Hc3 Ed5+ 47 &c2 EIS 48 kd2 a5 49 be3 bd 50 Xb3+ de4 51 Ha3 dbS 52 Mb3+ ec6 53 a4 HeS+ 54 214 Hd5 55 Bb8 Bd7 Stronger was 55..td4+ 56 e5 Bxad 57 MiB Had 58 Hxt7 Ba7 59 Ric+ bbs and Black should win. 56 we3 c4 57 RcB+ 57...ed5 Sacrificing the a-pawn seems a bit un- necessary. 58 Ha8 &c5 59 HxaS+ &b4 60 Ma8 3 61 Bc8 wb3 62 a5 c2 63 ab eb2 64 Bb8+ scl 65 be2 Ba7 66 Eb6 5 67 el f4 68 Se2 La8 69 wel e8+ 70 &f2 Has 70...Kd8 71 Sei Bd3 72 a7 He3+ 73 bf Ha3 74 Eb7 is also a draw. 71 el Ba7 72 ve2 Re7+ 73 wf2 Be3 74 a7 Ha3 75 Hb7 wd2 76 Bd7+ c3 77 Mc7+ &b2 78 Bb7+ a1 79 Hc7 &b1 80 Bb7+ wa 81 e7 a2?! Why not just accept that the position is now drawn? 82 a8W Exa8 83 Exc2 db1 84 Bc4 Ha2+ 85 1 eb2 86 Exf4 dc3 87 Hg4 ded3 88 Mg2 Ha1+ 89 df2 aa? 89...2a2+ 90 &g3 Ha8 still draws, Af ter the text suddenly White is winning 90 Hg5! Ha8 91 g3 Ha7 92 tg4 Ha8 93 £4 Hal 94 Hed Hgl+ 95 cS Hg8 96 Se6 Hf8+ 97 &g5 Xg8+ 98 Eg6 Hf8 99 15 wd5 100 He6 Hg8+ 101 6 Ef8+ 102 wg6 Eg8+ 103 s&t7 Hg5 104 £6 1-0 38The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game ‘Summary ‘As we have scen in the five games in this chapter Black has nothing to fear from the classical lines of the Italian Game, short of a short draw that is. The various gambits, the Méller and 6 0-0, are only dangerous for White and belong to the past. The main line is also completely harmless and the only problem Black needs to worry about is how to create winning chances. For White, the idea of winning seems to be far away. If you want to play for a win in the Italian Game, you need to play 5 d3, as presented in the next chapter. 1 e4 e5 2 D3 Ac6 3 Lcd 2c5 4 c3 DE 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 60-0 Axed 7 exd4 d5— Game 11 6...2b4+ (D) 7 Bd2 7 Dc3 Axed 8 0-0 Rxc3 9 d5 (D) 9... eS — Game 7 9...2£6 — Game 8 7...8xd2+ 8 Abxd2 d5 9 exd5 Axd5 10 Hb3 (D) 10..ce7 — Game 9 10...a5 — Game 10 6...2b4+ 39CHAPTER FOUR The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3 As said in the previous chapter I do not believe that there is anything dangerous to White’s play after 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 De6 3 Lc4 Lc5 4 c3 Af6 5 a3. Black should always equalise without any real effort. Actually the line reminds me quite a bit of the 4 d3 line in the Ruy Lopez; sometimes there are even ttanspo- sitions between the two openings. Having stated once more that the line is harmless, it is important for me to repeat the old Russian distinction between drawn positions and equal positions. There are players far stronger than me who play this line regularly as White and with good results. In Games 12 and 13 below we shall look at an early 5...a6, where Black retains the idea of playing ..d7-d5 in one move. Black will always want to put his bishop on a7 in these quiet lines, so White sometimes pre-empts this carly transposition with a quick 5 b4l?, The resulting positions of this rapid queenside advance can be seen in Games 14 and 15. In the next game White plays a2-a4 without any ap- parent plan beyond preventing Black from exchanging the white bishop with a quick .. Das. Finally, in Games 17 and 18, we will examine positions not too different from the first two games in the chapter, where we have the Italian with 5 d3 in its purest form. Game 12 S.Vysochin-S.Kapnisis Corinth 2004 1 e4 eS 2 AF3 Ac6 3 &c4 c5 4 c3 40The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3 D6 5 d3 a6 Black should not overstate the harm- lessness of 5 d3 with 5...d52!, as White can then claim an advantage after 6 exd5 Dxd5 7 Wb3! (this is stronger then theoretical 7 0-0 0-0 8 Hel after which 8... Mf6! leads to an unclear game) 7.4 8 &xf4 exf4 9 Qxt7+ LEB 10 0-0 Wxd3 11 Eel and White is much better. 6 2b3 2a7 7 Abd2 0-01? Black’s plan is simple. He wants to play ..d7-d5 in one move. Therefore White should forget about his extravagant plans and just castle. 8 h3 d5 8...6 transposes to the next game. 9 We2 9 0-0 leaves us with two interesting options to analyse: a) 9.,.e82! makes little sense as the ideal square for this rook is d8. Black should focus on getting it there instead of playing this kind of ‘wrist-chess’. Now after 10 Hel dxe4 (if 10..h6? 11 exd5 @xd5 12 d4 with a clear advantage) 11 Des He7 12 Ddxe4 Axed 13 Axes Wa7 (not 13..h6? 14 Whs! WR and White wins after 15 S95! Be8 16 DfG+ exf6 17 Sxh6) 14 Ses Bes 15 Whs His 16 da and White is much better. b) 9..dxe4 10 dxe4?! (the knight on d2 is unemployed after this move, and what is more important White has already lost his social insurance; instead 10 Axe4 h6 11 ad Axed 12 dxed WEG is just equal) 10... We7 11 4h2?! (White does not control the centre so the attack on the kingside is condemned to defeat; more sensible was 11 Wc2 Be6 12 Edt with good chances for equality) 11.28 12 We Se6 13 Bc2 Hd 14 Hel Wa7 15 Aafl De7 16 b3 DAgG 17 By DeB! 18 Madi Web 19 Ag h6 20 Bxd6 Dxd6 21 Bd2 5 22 Bel Hd8 and Black is slightly better, V.Bologan-M.Adams, German Bundesliga 1995. AL _ Mone hee 9...dxe4 10 dxed Te 10 Axed Dxet 11 deed WH with equality. 10.,.d7!? Or 10... We7 11 Ac4 Be6 12 Ags Bd7 13 0-0 Bad8 with equality, but not 11...b52! (the white knight wants to go to €3, so why provoke this?) 12 De3 Da5 13 22 Ab 14 eA! (an old idea by Wilhelm Steinitz — White has a stable centre can therefore start a kingside attack) 14...26 15 Bet Ddo 16 5 Dhs 17 Ads Was 18 47italian Game and Evans Gambit @®xe5 with a clear_—_ advantage, V.Komliakov-M.Marin, Rumanian Team Championship 1993. 11 0-0 AcB 12 Sc2 De6 13 Dc4 WIE 14 g3 b5 15 Ded 15...2g5?! Black does not benefit from this exchange. Better was 15..Wh6 16 h4 Wh5 17 Ba5 Ld8 18 a4 Bd7 with an unclear game, 16 AxgS Wxg5 17 &g2 Now White is slightly better. +7} ve t BS 17...Wh6 After 17...2e6 White puts pressure on the queenside with 18 a4, Unfortunately for Black he cannot simplify the position, since if 18..2xe3 19 Qxe3 We6 20 axb5 axb5 21 Bxa8 Hxa8 22 Wxb3! Bb8 23 Wa3 Hxb2? 24 2a4! and White wins. 18 Bhi Wd6 19 Ed1 Wes 20 AS De7 21 &b3 Wie 22 De3 2b7?! This allows White to simplify the position himself and retain his agile knight. Better was 22..b8 23 Dt Bxpd 24 bxg4 Hfd8 25 Hxd8+ Hxd8 26 a4 and White has some plus. 23 Dga Wigs 24 £31? Here White could have played 24 Dse5 Wredt 25 Wxet Bxedt 26 3 B65 27 a4 and in the endgame Black is under pressure in the centre and on the queenside. White has the advantage in the game as well though. 24...Ac6 25 2d5 HfeB 26 a4! bxad Black has great problems organising his pieces. He could quickly go wrong with 26...h52! 27 axb5 axb5 28 “e3 b4 29 ASS bxc3 30 bxc3 and White is much better because 30...2b6? does not work, ie. 31 Bxa8 Qxa8 32 Wa2 df8 33 Dh4 Wee 34 Bg5 Wxg5 35 2.xf7 and White wins. 27 Exa4 &b6 28 De3 ab 29 ATS Dd8 29...8.a6 is possible, but then 30 Wd2 h6 31 b3 @b5 32 Ha2 Bad8 33 c4 and 42The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3 White retains the pressure. 30 2xb7 @xb7 31 Wb5 We6 32 Kos Bad8 33 Hxd8 Axd8 34 £3 choose between the plan executed in the game with @f1, or simply transpose to Games 17 and 18 by castling. This is matter of taste as both variations are equal. 34...96? Here Black misses his chance. After 34..c6! 35 Wad @xe3 36 Dxe3 Wh Black has counterplay. 35 &xb6 cxb6 36 e3 \b7?! This loses directly. Better was 36..e7 37 Das Bb7 38 He? Hxc7 39 Ac? Was 40 @d5 and Black has some illusory chances for a draw. 37 Bc6 We7 38 Bxb6 Ad6 39 Xxd6 1-0 Game 13 V.lordachescu-Z.Gyimesi Rumania 2004 1 ef e5 2 43 Deb 3 Lcd Ac5 4 3 26 5 d3 al? 6 2b3 dé Black chooses a different strategy based on a solid centre and slow development. In many ways this can be com- pared to the last two games of this chapter, if it was not for White delaying castling, 7h3 £a7 8 Dbd2 0-0 Another critical position. White has to gan Against 9 We2 then 9..d7!? looks good. Black wants to remove the white bishop from the b3-g8 diagonal and per- haps prepare ...f7-£5. After 10 Dfl cS 11 Bc2 De6 12 g3 b5 13 He3 He7 14 h4 b4 15 Bg5 £6 16 Wh5 h6 17 2b3 d5 18 Dxd5 bxc3 19 Axe6 Lxe6 20 bxc3 gave Black equality in Kolar-Straka, Czech Re- public 2002. One possible continuation is 20..Dxd5 21 exdd Bxd5 22 &xh6 &xb3 (or 22..xh6 23 We6+ with equality) 23 Wey6 HET 24 axb3 Wd5 25 0-0 Wxb3 26 We4 Hd8 27 Hxa6 &b6 28 a8 Bxa8 29 Wra8+ B63 30 Wed and it is White who keeps the balance. 9...d5!? This is not illogical. White has played the time-consuming fl and Black wants to exploit this. 10 We2 He8 11 295 dxe4 12 dxe4 Re6 13 Hd1 We7 14 Ae3 Also after 14 Ag3 &xb3 15 axb3 Wee 16 0-0 h6 17 &xf6 Wxf6 Black has achieved equality. 43Italian Game and Evans Gambit 14...2xe3 15 Wxe3 2xb3 16 axb3 We6 17 Axfé If 17 0-0 Dh5! 18 Ad2 h6 19 Sh4 Af4 20 8&3 Db5 Black has achieved full equality. 17...Mixf6 18 0-0 We6 In a position like this a draw is the natural result. 19 Bd5 f6 20 Sfd1 De7 21 Wxb3 22 ha 4d7 22...2ac8 If Black takes another pawn with 22... Wxb2, White continues 23 Df5 @xf5 24 exfS Wa3 25 Exc7 Be7 26 Who Exc? 27 Wxc7 b5 28 Hd7 and his counterplay is good enough for a draw 23 DB DxfS 24 exfS HFS 25 We5 hé 26 c4 White could also try 26 We7!?, but after 26.2887 27 Weo Wre6 28 fxe6 Hxd7 29 Bxd7 b6 it is White who needs to draw, which he can manage by 30 e7 Be8 31 Bxc7 WE7 32 Bb7 with equality. 26...0h8 27 H1d3 Wxb2 28 Eg3 Ag8 29 &h2 Or 29 We7 Wet+ 30 Sh2 Wr 31 Sel Wet+ 32 Bh2 Wid with an equal position. 29...Wb6 30 We7 Wxf2 31 Exg7 Wa+ 32 @h1 White could have set a trap with 32 seg We3+ 33 Si Welt 34 bA2 We2+ 35 @g3, with the idea of 35...Wxf5?? 36 Bh4ll and White wins, a fantastic idea mentioned by Gyimesi. Instead, after 35...Wxc4 36 @h2 Wit Black draws. 32...Wf1+ 33 &h2 Wia+ 34 th1 Whi+ A-% Game 14 L.Yudasin-A.Lenderman Philadelphia 2004 1 e4 e5 2 AF3 Ac6 3 2c4 Lcd 4 c3 DTG 5 b4 2b6 6 d3 d6 7 a4 44The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3 This assault should not be dangerous for Black. The attack on the a- and b-files is happening in too narrow an area to create serious problems for Black. And what is more important, White does not have full stability and control over his centre, which offers Black good chances for counterplay exactly there. 7...a 5 d3 d6 6 b4 26 7 a4 a5 is the usual move order to reach this position, Yu- dasin chose a slightly different sequence to avoid the possibility of 5...26, discouraging b2-b4, as the bishop can then retreat to a7 in one go. 8 b5 De7 8..Db8!? is less popular, though still good, eg. 9 0-0 0-0 10 Bg5 ho 11 Bhd 95 12 B93 Qed and the position is equal according to Unzicker. 90-0 Against 9 Dbd2, 9...c6! achieves equality directly, based on 10 bxe6 bxc6 11 0-0 0-0 12 823 Bb8 13 &b3 Dgé and Black is alright. The solid 9...0-0 is also fine, e.g. 10 Ba2 Ag6 11 Des Bc5 120-0 Leb 13 d4 exdd 14 cxd4 Bb4 15 d5 Qd7! (infe- rior is 15.24 16 h3 2xf3 17 Wxf3 and White was slightly better in L S.Skembris, Beersheba 1993) 16 Wd4 Bes 17 Bg5 Bch 18 Bxfo Wxto 19 Wexto gxf6 20 Efe Ae5 with equality. 9...0-0 10 Abd2 10 2.952! Ag6 11 Ah4 Shs 12 Axeo+ fxg6! is a useful trick to remember. We learn that we should recapture towards the centre in the middlegame, but when you see an attacking chance, you should not hesitate to use it. After 13 &e3 c6 14 We2 d5 Black has an initiative. 10...Ag6 11 &b3 11 $03?! would be a mistake, as Black can exploit the absence of the bishop from the kingside with 11..2h5 12 d4 Dhf4 13 dxe5, and now the aggressive 13...p4! is strongest. White has the following discouraging opportunities: a) 14 We2 Wa7 15 Shit Bx63 16 D3 Wed 17 Del Dxe5 18 3 Wh4 19 93 Wh3 and Black had an attack in V.Cordeiro- JSoberano, correspondence 1996. b) 14 93 Axe 15 gxf4 Qxf3 16 Axf3 @sxc4 17 Wd5 Axa3 18 Bxa3 We 19 £5 96 20 Wxb7 exfS 21 c4 h8 22 Hht Bac8 23 exfS He8 and Black was much better in the top level game, C.Lutz- A.Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 1995. 45Italian Game and Evans Gambit ©) 14 exd6 cxd6 15 Wh3 is probably White’s best option, though after 15...W46 Black has perfect compensation for the pawn, 11....€67! Seemingly a harmless developing move, but in reality the position is sharper than it appears at first sight. White is coming round with his knight, causing Black real concerns, and all Black can think of is this simple automatic move, with no plan or idea behind it. Or at least that’s what it looks like. Maybe Black was surprised by the troubles he faced later on, in the middlegame with opposite- coloured bishops. Instead: a) 11..d5!? directly could be an alternative. After something like 12 &a3 He8 13 exdS Axd5 14 Ac4 h6 Black is alright, eg. 15 g3 Bed 16 Ado cxd6 17 Bxd5 Wa? ete. b) 11...c6 is also better, when the position after 12 bxc6 bxc6 13 d4 Qpd 14 We2 should be equal. Then Black can try 14. DEA? 15 dxe5 dxe5 16 Axe5 Le? 17 Daf3 DohS 18 Het xf} 19 Dxé3 Wa7 when he has compensation for the pawn according to Greenfeld. I am a little sus- picious about this, but maybe it is worth a go? 12 De4 dS 13 exd5 Dxd5 14 We2 A simple alternative here was 14 Dsb6l? cxb6 15 Des Agés 16 Dxeo Dxe6 17 Ba3 and White is better, But Yudasin was no doubt looking forward to skating around on the light squares. 14...Ddf4 15 Qxid Oxcd 16 axcd Dxta 17 93?! This is slightly inaccurate. White is still better after the text move, but more energetic was 17 Hfet! He8 18 d4 exd4 19 Bxc8+ Wxe8 20 Hel and Black is in trouble. After the only move 20...W£8 Gf 20,.De6 21 cxd4 Wa7 22 WES and White is much better) 21 WH Dcé 22 &xe6 fxe6 23 Wxe6+ WET 24 Wed Bd8 (not 24...dxc3? 25 @g5!! Wxf2+ 26 @h1 96 27 We7 and White wins) 25 exd4 White has a clear advantage. 17...Ag6 18 We2 Wd6 19 We4 c6 20 Hab1 Kab8 21 Ws We?! 21...2d8! was necessary; after 22 bxc6 bxc6 23 Exb8 Wxb8 24 d4 26 White is better, but Black can hold the position. 22 Whs Or 22 Wxf6 gxf6 23 d4 and White is 46The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3 much better. But White wants to keep the queens and the pressure on. 22...h6 23 Dd2 &h7 24 Ded We7 25 WtS We7 26 WhS We7 27 h4 Dns 28 Wt5+ g6?? A forgivable blunder, but also after 28...82g8 29 d2p2 White has a clear advantage. 29 Wd7! 2d8 The point is 29...Wxd7 30 Dor &y7 31 Dxd7 and White wins. 30 bxc6 Wxd7 31 cxd7 &g7 32 EbS 10 Game 15 V.Nevednichy-Z.Gyimesi Miskol 2004 1 ef 05 2 D3 Dc6 3 cd Oc5 4 b4 2b6 5 a4 a6 6 c3 AFG 7 d3 dé ‘This time the Italian Game has taken a short trip through the Evans Gambit De- clined. Another move order can be seen in the previous game. By the standard route, 4 c3 Df6 5 d3 d6 6 b4 Bb6 7 a4, the move here would have been 7...a62!, which in my opinion is weaker than 7..05. Black should not allow White to occupy all this space on the queenside. 8 Wb I do not like this move too much. It is hard to see what good the queen is doing on b3 this early on, and later it might very well find itself better placed somewhere else. Simpler is 8 0-0 0-0 9 a5 &a7, when we have a bran a) 10 Abd2 Ae7 11 Lb3 Dg6 12 Act He8 13 Hel h6 was played in C.Lutz- PLeko, Cap d’Agde 1994, and now 14 De3 D4 15 Eb1 gives White some advantage. b) 10 Bel h6 11 Dbd2! (11 h3 is only required in this structure if you want to play d3-d4; here Black can reply 11...)h5! 12 d4 WE6 13 23 Df4 with unclear play, G.Timoshenko-P.Jaracz, Koszalin 1999) 11..De7 12 AFL Age 13 Dg3 and White is slightly better, 8 25?! is weaker, as it can be strongly met by 8..h6! 9 Qh4 g5, where Black exploits the fact that he has not yet cas- tled kingside. After 10 2g3 @h5 11 h4 g4 12 Dh2 Hes 13 Ari Who Black was much better in J.Timman-J.Smejkal, Wijk aan Zee 1975. 8...0-0 We7 9 0-0 a5!? is also interesting. This seems reasonable even with a lost 47Italian Game and Evans Gambit tempo (..a7-a6-a5), as the white queen might not be too well placed on b3 here. After 10 bS Dd8 11 Dbd2 0-0 we have an unclear game, though White can avoid it by flicking in 9 a5I2 9 a5 a7 100-0 Ae7 11 Ags Also after 11 Be3 c6l? 12 &xa7 Hyxa7 13 We2 would White have no advantage. 11...We8 12 2e3 c6 13 &xa7 Exa7 14.44 14...exd4 Here Black can sharpen the game with 14..Dg6l? 15 dxe3 Axed 16 f4 DAxc4 17 Wsc4 ho 18 Wd4 Ba8 19 5 with an unclear position. 15 cxd4 h6 16 e5 hxg5 17 exf6 gxf6 18 Dd2 d5 19 2.43 Agé 20 We2 Ata 21 g3?! White is too optimistic here, hoping his structure will prove superior. The simple 21 Bfel Wd7 22 Be3 was better, when the position is unclear. 21...Dxd3 22 Wxd3 Hete it looks as if White is much better. His main plan is to play a game of hide and seek and end up torturing Black in a gruelling ending. Black is faced with the question of how to defend the b7- pawn and get the Ba7 into play. He solved this with an imaginative idea... 22...b5!! 23 axb6 White needs to test Black’s idea. After 23 Efel He7 24 He3 Hxe3 25 fxe3 Weo 26 b3 He8 27 Hel £5 Black is at least slightly better. 23...5e7! White can surely still save the game, but now it is very difficult. 24 tet dig7 25 OF? This is too passive. White needs some counterplay, which could be obtained with 25 Ab3I, even though after 25...Hd7 26 Acs Wh3 27 Wet Wh5 28 Axa6 (28 2, with the idea of WE, is probably much better and should give White some 48The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3 chances) 28..Hh8 29 We2 &h3 30 g4! xed 31 Dc5 BF3 32 Wes £5 33 Dds Be4 34 Dts Wh4 Black's attack is very unpleasant. 25...Wd7 26 We3 Also after 26 Hel Exet 27 Lxet Wb7 28 De3 Wxb6 29 We3 2d7 30 Kal Zbs 31 Ac2 25 32 De3 Led Black would be much better. 26...2fe8! 27 Wxc6 Wh3 RE Y, pepe a nae a m es 28 Wc3 White cannot play 28 b5? because of 28.265! 29 b7 (or 29 bxa6 Bed) 29..8e4 30 £3 @xf3 31 He2 Be2 and Black wins. 28...094 29 b7 Ze2 30 Bo2 Bxb7 31 Bxe2? White is falling over, but after 31 3 Bbe7 Black would also be close to winning. 31...xe2 32 Hxa6 0-1 Since Black wins after both 32...WE5 and 32...Etc7. Game 16 S.Movsesian-A.Morozevich Prague (rapid) 2002 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 2c4 &c5 40-0 26 5 d3 dé 6 c3 0-0 ‘This is main position for the 5 d3 variation. Here Black cannot really refrain from castling. The old idea of 6..a6 7 2b3 Ba7 8 Abd2 h62 intending ..g7-g5 has one major defect: Black will not manage to create an attack, but instead will just weaken his own position, eg. 9 Bel 25 10 Dfl p4 11 D3d2 DhS 12 Acs Dts 13 Be3 bS 14 Da3 Who 15 Bd5 Ld7 16 D2 Bxe3 17 Dexe3 h5 18 a4 and White had the advantage in D.King-V.Hort, Dortmund 1988. 7aa This is a harmless sideline which gives Black good chances 7...a6 7.2051? is also fine, e.g. 8 Abd2 Ba7 9 Bb3 Dh5 10 Des WAG 11 Afxed Axes 12 Dxe5 Wrxed 13 d4 Waxed 14 WehS e6 with equality, JSpeelman-B.Gulko, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990. 8 Dbd2 White can exchange the strong dark- squared bishop with 8 £&c3, but after 8...2xe3 9 fxe3 d5 Black should be OK, eg. 10 exd5 Dxd5 11 We2 Be6 12 Abd2 We7 13 b3 Hac8 14 Wee £5 15 Basel with unclear play in D.Barua-G.Milos, 49Jtalian Game and Evans Gambit ‘Moscow Olympiad 1994, 8...2a7 9 Het 9 a5 De7 is a standard plan to remember. It is a very good way to get some attacking chances as Black. Now after 10 Bet Age 11 Dfl Be8 12 Bb3 ho 13 &e3 Leb the position is equal. In the game Black finds another way to create attacking chances. 9...g4! 10 Ze2 Lh8 11 h3 Ah6 12 DA £5! A critical position. 13 Oxh6 This is probably the soundest decision in this position. White has also tried: a) 13 exfS?l Dsf5 14 Ses Wes 15 d4 We6 and Black is at least slightly better, D.Barua-M.Adams, Bayswater 1989. b) 13 d4? feed 14 Bxe4 d5 15 Bp5 and now L.PsakhisJ.Hector, Palma de Mal- lorca 1989, continued 15...dxe4? 16 Sxd8 Bxd8 17 Ags exd4 18 cxd4 Bxdd 19 We2 265 with an unclear game. For some strange reason Black feared taking the pieces. I have checked this position with Fritz 8 for hours, and even though we are talking about very strong players, I cannot believe that White’s compensation is anything but an illusion after 15...Wd7 16 Axed Dxe5 17 Hxe5 dxc4 18 Bxh6 exh6 19 We2 Wado. 13...gxh6 14 exf5 2xf5 15 2d5 296 16 Wd2 We 17 Dgs Wra 18 Wxta Ext The position is more or less equal. White has a better pawn structure, while Black has the two bishops and control over two half-open files. In positions like this I usually prefer Black for practical reasons, simply because it is easier to play with the initiative than against it 19 247! White goes wrong straight away! Better was 19 Be4!? Bh5 20 Ded2 BafB 21 b4 ADdB 22 b5 c6 23 bxe6 bxc6 24 Bed a5 50

Jan Pinski Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jan Pinski Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like