Jan Pinski Italian game Evans gambitJan Pinski Italian game and Evans gambit EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers ple www.everymanchess.corFirst published in 2005 by Gloucester Publishers ple (formerly Everyman Publishers plo), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London ECLV OAT. 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. All 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 or 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, Northbusgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London ECTV OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www.everymanchess.com Lveryman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence from Random House Inc. EVERYMAN 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. over design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.CONTENTS 1 e4 eb 2 Af3 Ac6 3 Lcd Part One: Italian Game 1 Introduction and the Italian Four Knights 5 2. The First Steps in the Italian Game "1 3 The Méller Attack and the Classical Italian Game 23 4 ‘The Italian Regretted: White plays 5 d3 40 Part Two: Evans Gambit 5 The Fivans Gambit Declined 57 6 The Evans Gambit with 5...2e7 7. 7 ‘The Evans Gambit with 5...8c5 88 8 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5...2a5 103 9 The Livans Gambit: ‘The Main Line with 5...2a5 120 Part Three: Other Lines 10 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines 140 Index of Complete Games 159CHAPTER ONE Introduction and the Italian Four Knights I will assume that the reader bas 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 ef 05 2 AF3 Ac6 3.04 Grandmaster Paul Keres wrote about this move: ‘100 calm to give White advan- tage’ This can, of course, be discussed, but more importantly we should remem- ber that the opening is not played in or- der to gain an advantage, but in order build the foundation for a later (or occa- theoretical to gain a sionally immediate) victory plus is just one of many way 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- iar, Now let us not get lost in talk, and in- stead allow Black to execute his move. Now what about 3...2c5 here? Does it not have the same defects as 3 Sicd - ? Instead 3...2)6 looks optically better, as it is attacking the pawn on e4; bur surely it is more a matter of taste than of beauty contests at such an early stage in the game. 3..Df6 would take us into the past and my previous book on the ‘Two Knights Defence, while 3...8c3 leads 10 the future and the following pages on the Italian Game, one of the oldest chess openings. 3...2.05 In the diagram position White has many ideas and possibilities, but only two. give interesting play: 4 3. with all the main lines of the Italian Game, and theftalian 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 Izmir 2004 1 ed e5 2 D3 Ac6 3 Lcd 2c5 4 Dc3 In this position White has also tried some other moves: ‘The 4 d4? gambit was refuted a long time ago with 4...2xd4! 5 Axd4 Axd4 6 £45 7 exdS What 8 g3 Wh3 9 Sel WS 10 £d3 e4 and Black was much better, {LFahri-R.Spielmann, 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 d42!, but after this risky move White is likely to have to fight for equal- ity, eg. 5..Rxd4 6 DAxd4 Dxd4 7 £4 d6 8 fxe5 dxe5 9 &g5 We7 (if 9...2e6 10 Da3 We7 11 c3 Bxc4 12 Axcd Deb 13 Bxf6 exf6 14 Bhi! with compensation for the pawn) 10 Dc3 c6 11 Wd3 Be6 12 Rxe6 Dxe6 13 Axf6 gxfo, and now Black is better because the white knight has diffi- culties finding its way to £5. b) 4..d6 5 3 WG (6... 2y4 is a sound option given by Paul Keres; play might very well continue 6 d4 exd4 7 Wb3 Wd7 8 Bxf7+ Wxe7 9 Wxb7 dd7 10 Wxa8 BxB 11 pxfB Dcd 12 Ad2 DxB+ 13 Dxf3 xB 14 Wds West with perpetual check) 6 d3 h6 7 &c3 Dge7 8 b4¢ Axe3 9 fxe3 0-0 10 Wel 2e6 11 Add We 12 Dxe6 fxe6 13 HxfB+ Bxt8 14 We3 with equality, R.Rabiega-A.Yusupov, German Championship 2001. 4...Dt6 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 2g5 6 0-0 is another example of the non- event we have before us, and then: a) 6...8g42! 7 h3 bS? is a distinctively bad line (though 7..2xf3 8 Wxf3 and White is slightly better was not the idea) 8 bxed hxg4 9 gS and it is hard for Black to prove compensation for the picce. b) 6..a6 7 h3 a5 8 a3 Axed 9 dxed &e6 10 Wd3 Dh5 11 Aad5? (instead 11 Hal with equality) 11..c6 12 Ac3 bS 13 cxb5 axb5 14 Hdl 2c4 and Black is slightly better. ‘T.Luther-F. Borkowski, Naleczow 1987. 6...h6 7 &xf6 Or 7 Sh4 Bed 8 3 Bx 9 Wxf3 d4 10 Wal c6 with equality. 7...Wxf6 8 Dd Was 8..\Wg6? is refuted by 9 Dbd! (this is better then 9 We2 as recommended inIntroduction and the Italian Four Knights ECO) 9..e5 10 Axc7+ Sd8 11 Axas Weahd 12 Wad2 a6 13 3 bS 14 Bd5 BbT 15 b4 a7 16 a4 and White wins. 93 a6 Black can casily drift into a worse posi- tion here, eg, 9..Ae7 10 d4 exd4 (or 10..2\xd5 11 dxcS Af4 12 g3 @hb3 13 cxd6 cxd6 14 Watt 8 15 Wd and White is slightly better) 11 cxd4 &b6 12 Dxb6 axb6 13 0-0 d5 14 exdd DAxd5 15 Hel+ 2e6 16 DcS 0-0 17 WE gives White some plus, A-Horvath- A.Aleksandrov, Izmir 2004. 10 d4 a7 Better perhaps was 10,.exd4! 11 cxd4 a7 12 b3 Dc? 13 0-0 AxdS 14 Lxd5 0-0 15 Bel c6 16 &b3 He8 with equality in B.Macieja-M.Adams, Calvia Olympiad 2004. 11 dxeS Dxe5 12 DxeS dxeS 13 Wh5 0-0 14 Wxe5 Hes 15 Wra Wade 16 Wxd6 Bxe4+ 17 Ae3 cxd6 According to HCO this position is equal. 18 245! ‘An unpleasant idea to have to face. 18...Re5? Once out of theory Black makes a mis- take, Instead 18...8e7! 19 0-0-0 &xe3+ 20 fxc3 Mg4 21 Hd4 Qe6 22 Lxco Hxe6 would bave 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 Zhf1 Be6 22 &xb7 Ha7 23 2d5 a5 24 xe6 Exe6 25 Hd2 This ending is probably lost for Black. He has two weaknesses (the d6- and a5- pawns) and no sensible counterplay. 25...a4 26 dc2 g5?! In my opinion this just creates another weakness. The passive 26...8f8 27 285 ¥c7 etc. looks slightly better. 27 B15 &g7 28 Bfd5 Ha6 29 a3! White's wants to cat the a4-pawn, 29...6 30 &c4 Zb6 31 HaS He4+ 32 dB Mig4 33 M2 &g6 34 h3 Bh4 35 Hafs Hf4 36 Hoxt4 gxt4 37 ed &g5 38 Hd2 5+ 39 f3 Hc6 40 a3 Bb6 41 h4+ &xha? The position is lost and Aleksandrov commits suicide. Basic life functions would have been kept operational with 41.86. 42 dxf4 d5 43 Hd3 1-0italian Game and Evans Gambit Game 2 B.Larsen-T.Ochsner Danish Championship, Vishjerg 1997 1 e4 05 2 Ac3 AE 3 AFB Ac6 4 4 25 5 d3 d6 6 295 T know, 1 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 | also want to find space to include a little more theory: a) 6 203 26 (6..Dd4! gives interest- ing play, as after 7 xd4 exd4 8 Aad Bb4+ 9 c3 dxc3 10 bxc3 Ha5 11 0-000 Black stands well) 7 Wd2 Bc6 8 Bb5 0-0 9 @xc6 bxeb 100-0 Ad7 11 d4 £6 12 h3 Wed with equality. b) 6 Dat Bb6 7 c3 Reb 8 V5 0-09 Bxc6 bxc6 10 Be5 We7 11 0-0 bo 12 Bh4 Sc. Black shrewdly avoids prob Jems on the h4-e8 diagonal. Now after 13 b3 Web he had equality in Y.Rantanen- Y.Razuvaev, Helsinki 1984, ©) 6h3 B67 AUS h6 with equality. This is also good for Black. And more importantly, it changes the nature of the position, so it becomes a little more inter: esting, 7 2b3 Another practical example: 7 @d5 Dxct 8 dxc4 c6 9 DAxtOt gxfo 10 Qe3 Woo 11 Wa2 Be6 (if [1..Rxe3 12 fre Wyxb2 13 0-0 with compensation) 12 00-0 00.0 with play, V.Korchnoi-D.Bronstein, USSR Cham- pionship 1952. 7...c6 80-0 White can also strike immediately in the centre with 8 d4. Then after 8..Axb3 9 axb3 exd4 10 Axd4 ho 11 Sh4 0-0 12 0-0 g5 13 &e3 Be8 14 Bel d5 15 e5 Det 16 Wd3, asin’ A.Morozevich- Kir.Georpiev, Tilburg 1994, Black should play 16.. 117 hxgs We? with the advantage, instead of 16...8xd421_ 17 Wad4 B15 18 Axed xed 19 Bxa7 Bxa7 20 Wyxa? Bxc2 21 Wxb7 when it would be White who is better, 8...0-0 9 Ae2 Axb3 Or 9..2e4 10 Ags h6 11 Bed with equality 10 axb3 h6 11 Se3 @b6 12 Ag3 $6 unclear \~ a a A = PY d oe Ve Black is slowly getting into trouble against his legendary opponent. [ereIntroduction and the Italian Four Knights 12.288! guaranteed equality, thanks to the pressure against rhe e4-pawn. 13 Wd2 wh7?! Black is apparently afraid of a sacrifice on h6, but | cannot see how that would ever work, Black can always play ..Qe4 in the end, Therefore 13..Be8? 14 &xb6 Wexb6 15 d4 Bg4 16 dxed dxe5 17 We3 &x3 18 Wx Wh4 with equality was better. 14 &xb6 Wxb6 15 d4 exd4 16 Dxd4 16...2fe8?! Bhck is apparently too complacent, while it was time to do something to stay in the game; eg, 16..d5!2 17 Wd3 Lbs 18 65 \d7 19 4 f6! with unclear play. 17 “fe1 g6? ‘This complet weakness. 17...d5 was better, when White can reply 18 e5 Dd7 19 Wed with the initiative: 18 ad1 vg7 19 ha! A typical move, using the g-pawn as a - unnecessarily creates a hook. 19...Be7 20 Adf5+! 20...s2xf5 The tactical justification for the knight sacrifice was 20...xf5? 21 exfS We5 22 b4 Wed 23 fixe6 Hxeo 24 AFS+ By8 25 b3 WS 26 Wes and White wins. 21 exfS Kae8 22 Kxe7 Xxe7 23 fxg6 fxg6 24 h5! Dxh5 25 We3+ Gh7 26 ®xh5 gxh5 27 Mxd6 WS 28 Axh6+ exh6 29 W6+ wh7 30 Wxe7+ segs 31 Wes In the end material superiority decides. 31...Wa5 32 wh2 Wal 33 We6+ dig7 34 Wd7+ Yf8 35 Wc8+ ve7 36 Wxb7+ ed6 37 Wh4+ wd5 38 Heat sed6 39 Wd4+ sve7 40 b4 seb7 41 4 Wel 42 b5 cxbS 43 Wd7+ svb6 44 Wxb5+ sec7 45 We5+ b7 46 b4 Wta+ 47 g3 Wg4 48 b5 We2 49 Wd5+ s&b8 50 dg2 Wes 51 Wd3 &c7 52 We3 Wa8+ 53 £3 a6 54 bxab 1.0Italian Game and Evans Gambit ‘Summary We have seen in the notes to the evo games above that the Italian Four Knights is theoretically completely harmless. At the same time we have also seen that stronger players can ourplay 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 battle these lines it is more important to be in good form, than to know theoretical ideas and moves. 1 ed e5 2 DF3 AcB 3 2c4 Lc (D) 4 Ac3 (1D) 4.d4~see Game 1 40-0 —see Game 1 4...216 5 d3 d6 6 295 (D) 6..b6 = Game 1 6...Aa5 — Game 2 10CHAPTER TWO First Steps in the Italian Game In this chapter we will take a first glance at the position after 1 e4 e5 2 43 Acé 3 &c4 2c5 43 This is the most interesting and strong- est 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 c3 is a variety of ways, where 4..4\f6 is the strongest, Ac- cording to cutrent 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 suc cessful lower down. After 4 c3 Df6 5 dd exd4 6 e5 many games have continued with moves other than the absolutely es- sential 6...d51, which equalises at once. But first let us examine 4...We7. Game 3 A.Alekhine-S.Tarrasch Mannheim 1914 1 4 e5 2 AF3 Ac6 3 &c4 &c5 4 c3 We7 ie \ We, eZ “yy 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 bis knight. Though they have little theoItalian Game and Evans Gambit retical importance, it would be wrong nor to have a glance at them. a) 4.. WW f62! 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! 26 (if 5..cxd42! 6 5 We6 7 cxd4 Bb4+ 8 Ac3 and White is much better as the 22-pawn is untouchable, ic. 8..Wxg2? 9 Bot Wh3 10 .xf74! and Black is in real trouble) 6 0-0 6 7 a4 a6 8 dxed Axes 9 Axed Weed 10 Wes Afo 11 a5 &a7 12 Bel and White has a clear advantage according to Max Huwe. b) 4.652! looks very dubious, White surely has a lot of sound options here, but instead of looking for an refutation, | will recommend the simple 5 d3, when play can continue 5.26 6 b4 Bb6 7 a4 a6 2 8 dxed Dxe4 9 0.0 a5 10 Wad Ado V1 AxeS with a terrible attack) 8 0-0 dG 9 Dbd2 and White is much better, as Black has problems with his king. ©) 4.d6 5 d4 exd4 has been played once in a while as well. Now after 6 exd4 Rb4t 7 Ac3 Bod 8 0-0 Wa7 9 d5 Dds 103 @h5 11 Wadd Bxc3 12 Wxe3 White is slightly better according to [:CO. 54 5...2.b6 Black cannot give up the centre with 5...cxd42, Strategically it is a catastrophe, and it does not work out tactically either, after the cnergetic 6 0-0! when we should look at the following lines: a) 6..dxc3 7 Axc3 do 8 Dds Was 9 b4! &xb4 10 Axb4 Dxb4 11 Wh3 and White is much better. b) 6.. T exd4 Axc4 (or 7...Dxf3+ 8 exf3 £b6 9 Ac3 c6 10 Hel with a clear advantage) 8 We2! Sb6 9 Weed do 10 Ac3 and White is better. 60-0 6 Bg5!? is quite a tricky move, which should probably be met with the anti- structural. 6...f6!2. Black’s prospects after 6..A\f6, when I would be quite tempted to go for the fol- lowing pawn sacrifice, in order to get su- preme control over the light squarcs in the centre: 7 d5 Bd8 8 d6 cxd6 (Black cannot stand the exchange of queens, as his pawn structure is a total ruin after 8. Wxdor! 9 Wxd6 exd6 10 Bxf6 gxfo, when 11 Ab4 d5 12 &xd5 gives White a clear advantage) 9 Da3 I have doubts about and here we should probably look at the nwo lines separately:a) 9...a6 10 Bd5 Aco 11 DAc4 Be7 12 Dc3 and White is just much better. b) 9Sxf2+ 10 Be2! dd (think this might be forced; after 10...2c5 11 Ah4 Aco 12 5 We 13 Axfo pxfo 14 b4 2\f4+ 15 @F3 White is much better) U1 Wad5 Dxd5 12 Mxe7 Bxe7 13 Vxd5 cd 14 b4 Bd6 15 Dc4 £6 16 Ac3 and White has very good compensation for the pawn. 6...d6 As I said, | think this position is slightly better for White. Tada This is not too testing of course. In- stead Twill here risk my neck and dubious reputation on the underestimated 7 d5!, claiming it will guarantee White a small advantage after 7..2d8 8 &d3 Aro 9 \bd2 c6 (Black should of course avoid 9.5? 10 AxedS Wxed when 11 Dc4 wins) 10 #\c4 &c7 and now White has nwo interesting possibilities to consider: a) 11 Qc2!? h6 12 De3 0-0 13 h3 exdd 14 exd5 Dh7 15 Dts Wee 16 Wd3 Bxf5 17 Wxf5 WxfS 18 Bxf5 96 19 Sc2 by7 20 @b2 5 21 di Dro 22 Aet Ae7 23 c4 and White was slightly better in First Steps in the Italian Game A.Tzermiadianos-M.Lazic, Kavala 1996. b) 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 b3 Be 13 We2 0-0 14 @a3 and White is slightly better, A. Becker. Munich Olympiad 1936. So T have some confidence that White hues, is seriously fighting for an advantage here, ot let us say that Black is struggling to equalise, and will probably have to come up with something else on move 9, but 1 am not really aware of what it would be. 7...06 8 Se3 8...2.g4?! I do not see a great future for the bishop on g4. Instead 1 would recom- mend leaving the square vacant for the knight. After 8.6 9 Abd2 Ags 10 We2 Axe3 11 fxe3 0-0 12 Hf2 the posi tion is more or less equal. 9 d5 Abs 10 a5 Lxe3 11 fxe3 AE 12 Abd2 \bd7 13 Wel Acé 14 Wot! White is not ashamed of regretting the placement of the quecn, as Black’s knight will shortly be driven back to the stables with a stick. Aftcr something, stupid like 14 Wy321_hS! Black is better because of the weakness of the e4-pawn, One line goes 15 Ags h4 16 We2 h3 17 93 Hhs 18 12Italian Game and Evans Gambit b4 Hxy5 19 bxc5 dxc3 and Black is clearly better. 14,..2.687! 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 b4 Dcd7 16 &d3 Bfek 17 c4 gives White better play, but Black can still hold the position. 15 b4 Acd7 16 Dh4! g6 This weakness is hard to avoid. After 16..Ag4 17 Dts Wes 18 DZ White is better. 17 Wel c6 18 Ahf3 cxd5 19 exd5 e4 20 &g5!? The knight begins a long journey, eventually ending up at d4. ‘Though there is nothing wrong with this, it seems quite logical also to consider going there di- rectly, After 20 Ad4 De5 21 Hea! White is much better (but after 21 &b3 Bd7 22 We2 Hc8 Black would be able ro keep the position together), e.g, 21...82d8 (21...0-0? 22 Wh4 and White wins) 22 W2 Degt 23 We2 g5 24 Hr! We5 25 3 etc. 20...h6 21 Dh3 Here White should not fall for 21 Wh4?? ®h7 and Black wins. 21,..We5 22 Bc1 Ag4 23 Ata g5 24 h3 Agf6 25 Nez ‘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...2)xd5? Better was 25...24, though after 26 We3 We7 27 Add Ded 28 het Bxed 29 DES xf 30 Hxf5 Ey8 31 We White has a clear advantage. 26 2xd5 Wxd5 27 Ad4 . TE yet 27...We5? ‘This is nothing but a stupid blunder. 14First Steps in the Italian Game Black should have played 27.08 28 Wee Hh7 29 Ars Wrxfs 30 WxfS Qxf5 31 Exf5 and White is much better. 28 Dc4 Was 29 Afs v8 ZZ hn, Us e Ay Hd 30 Afxdé Now White wins. 30...2h7 31 Hd1 Wc6 32 Hd4 b6 33 axb6 2&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 e5 2 43 Ac6 3 Lcd cs 40-0 d6 5 c3 We7 6 d4 2b6 7 h3 Please note that 4 0-0 is principally harm- less, 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. 7.246 8 Het hé ‘This is the beginning of an overopti- mistic plan. Black apparently is in a very aggressive mood, but his taste for vio- 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..<€2h82! 11 Ac2 Dg?! 12 b4 £6 13 @c3 left White much better in W.Hcidenfeld-M.Euwe, Johannesburg 1955, Black can improve with 11..exd4 12 cxd4 h6, bur after 13 €5 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 ba! 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 ..g7-25. Another option here was 9 a4 a6 10 23, but then Black has some time on his hands and can continue with 10...g5 11 dxeS dxeS 12 S&xb6 cxb6 13 Ah2 Bc6 with equality according to Unzicker. 15Italian 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 Uf @a3 Ad? 12 b5 Das 13 Qa2 Wie 14 Wa3 Zc8 15 DAbd2 White was only slightly better in E.Forre- Lugano 1989 11 aB 2a7 12 bb Dds It was probably around here that Black started to come to his senses; but it is kstrocm, already too late to find a decent position After the apparently logical 12..axb5 13 Qxb5 2d7, White can break through on. the qucenside with 14 a6! and on 6 15 Rxa6 A816 Bxd7+ Wrd7 Aa3 White has a brilliant initiative on the queenside, while Black’s attack still has to develop beyond biting his finger at White. 13 2.43! The breakthrough on the queenside in this game is very instructive. White could have gained a good position with simple moves like 13 bxaG!? bxa6 14 Wd3, but this would give Black time to execute his own plan, and afier 14.04 15 hxgd Dxp4 16 Be2 48 17 Dbd2 White is only somewhat better, 13.07 ‘The idea behind White’s list (prophy- co when Black tries to lactic) move is carry out his desired 13.4. Now the initiative explodes with 14 Bxe5! yxh3 15 bxa6 bxaG 16 Wadt Ad7 17 Deo Wha 18 3 Hy 19 @h2 Wr6 20 Ba2 and White is much better. 14 dxeS I really enjoy watching the simple, ver 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 devel- opment. Nevertheless, after something like 14 b6 @b8 15 Wad c6 16 Abd2 White is also better. 14...Dxe5 15 AxeS Wxed 16 b6 2b8 White has managed to reduce the black pieces ro chickens pushed against a wall, and now only needs to activate his quee side to convert his advantage. With his next six moves White manages to finish his development and target the key weal nesses in the black position, To many amateurs these moves might scem simple, but to replicare these simple moves in practice would be quite difficult, even for 16First Steps in the Italian Game experienced players. 17 bxc7! This is better then the artistic 17 &cl Hos 18 Be3 94 19 hd Bc6 20 bxc7 Bxc? 21 Bd5 even though this also leaves White with a big advantage. 17...&xc7 18 Ad2! 0-0 Black finally decides 10 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 D3 Wxc3 20 Wxd6 and White wins. 19 2d5 Ke8 20 Act WIE 21 He3! 2.7 22 WB! ‘This is stronger than 22 Wh5, although after the following piece of analysis, 22...8b5 23 Abo Sb8 24 Be3 We7 25 Hel Deb 26 c4 Bcb 27 Bb2 Wyo 28 Weer fxy6 29 BiG Bxd5 30 cxdd Dts 31 Qd4, we can conclude that White is much better too, 22... lig6 Also after 22..Wxf3 23 Exf3 will Black lose the d6-pawn. 23 Wg3 Ac6 24 2xd6 And that’s all folks! 24...8d8 25 Ab6 Lxb6 26 axb6 Fac8 27 2c7 He6 28 Lxe6 &xe6 29 Ha1 @h7 30 4 gxf4 31 Wxta Wo5 32 Wxg5 hxg5 33 Md6 “\a5 34 Bed3 &c4 35 Xg3 Rg8 36 GdB g4 37 hxg4 Zg6 38 216 2e6 39 g5 Eg8 40 Zgd3 Bcd 1-0 Game 5 E.Sveshnikov-R.Dautov Pinsk 1986 1 e4 eS 2 AF3 Ac6 3 8.04 8.c5 4 cB D6 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 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 &b5 De4 8 cxd4 Now Black has three possibilities. 8...2b6 and 8..SLe7 are considered here, while 8...2b4+ is investigated in the next game. 8...2b6 8..8e7 might look a lite passive at first sight, but ir is a completely viable possibility. Then 9 \c3 0-0 10 &c3'? (this appears to be berter than 10 2d3 65. IL exfo Axt6 12 Re3 Ab4 13 Vb1 Ags im. Lasker, £3 11 cxf with counterplay, W/Steinit New York match 1894) 10Italian Game and Evans Gambit @sxf6 12 De5 was seen in the recent game B.Macieja-C.Garcia Moreno, Span- ish Teague 2004. Now, instead of 12..@)b8 as played, J would suggest 12. Wd6! 13 &f4 Ads 14 0-0 Deo 15 Be3 a6 16 Be2 c5 with counterplay as an improvement. 9 Dc3 9 ad?! a5 10 £e3 0-0 11 Bxc6 bxcb 12 0-0 was strategically dubious, and after 12.65 13 exf6 Wxf6 Black is at least equal, A.Biro-P.Lukacs, Budapest 1985. 9...0-0 10 &xc6 This exchange appears quite risky. It is casy 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 &c312, when play is likely to continue 10,,.2g4 11 We2 @xf3 12 gxf3 De5 13 Bxc6 bxc6 14 0-0-0 Axf3, and now GM Sveshnikov continues his analy- sis with 15 WS Dh4 16 Wes Avo 17 h4 f5 18 exfo Wxf6 19 hS Af4 20 Bh4 where he claims that White has full com- pensation for the pawn, Actually I fear that White is fighting for a draw, and is not guaranteed to. succeed. A possible continuation is 20..Ac6 21 h6 g6 22 Bhs Bac8 23 Hed Dd8 24 Hxe8 Hxe8 25 Wa7 WE etc, However, White’s play can be greatly improved. Afier 15 We2! Qh4 16 Bhgt White has real threats coming up on the kingside, and Black will not be able co 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 2e3?! White is trying to play against the bishop on b6, but it was better simply to continue 11 0-0 Spd 12 Het with equal- ity. does not really achieve anything. Here Black had the chance to annoy the bishop on c3, or if White wants to avoid this, he will have to give up a lot of his presence in the centre. After 11.65! 12 exf6 Wxf6, Black is just better. Strong grandmasters have tried this out in two recent games: a) 13 Wb3 Wyo 14 Acs Wxe2 15 0-0-0 Dsf2 16 Bhgl Axd1 17 Bxg2 Dxe3 18 HBe2 Bxd4 19 Axc6 Sb6 20 AxdS Hfl+ 1821 dd2 Hdl+ 22 dec3 Hcl 23 sed2 Hc2+ 24 Bet Exe2+ 25 Hxe2 aG+ with a dangerous initiative, J.Rowson- LSokolov, Selfoss 2003. b) 13 Axed dxc4 14 Dd2 Rad! 15 Dxe4 Ba5+ 16 Dc3 Lxc3+ 17 bxc3 We and again Black had a deadly initiative in B.Macieja-G. Vescovi, Bermuda 2004, 12 Wad c5?! Black is entering a quagmire of bad tac- ties. 12.,.8.xf3 was better, although after 13 exf3 Axc3 14 bxc3 We8 15 £4 Heo 16 Bgl Hae8 17 We2 Wh3 18 0-0-0! White has some initiative, because of the weak black bishop on b6. 13 dxc5 2xf3 If 13...Bxc5?? 14 &xc5 Axc5 15 Wxgd and White wins. 14 gxf3 AxcS 15 2xc5 Axc5 i mane 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...We8 Black has an unpleasant choice here. He can play the text move, or 16..d4 17 Det Bb6 18 Bhgi Wh4 19 Hed when White has an unpleasant attack, or First Steps in the Italian Game 16..We7 17 Exd5 Had8 18 Bhd! @xf2 19 £4 where White is also better. 17 WaS 2xf2 18 Wxd5 Wee 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 di- agonal. 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...Hac8 20 Bhf1 2b6 21 £4 Wt5+ After the better try 21...Wxd5 22 Dxd5 EfcS 23 Ht3 c6 24 Axb6! (24 Ac3 Beds 25 Hfd3 Hxd3 26 Hxd3 £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 isa firm and stable supe- riority, that in practice will cost Black a very tough defence in return for the draw. 22 shal h6 23 ed Ui, em UL x ~ . « a \\ . S ‘ Va, Ly, \Y White is just much better here. 23...2h7 24 \g3 Wo4 25 a3 Wh3 26 We4+ wh8 27 15 c6 28 16 g6 29 Eta Bcd8 30 Ld6 Wxh2 31 Bha Wg1+ 32 ta2 We3 33 Wh1 33. Exc6l? is also possible, as after 33..8fe8 34 Whi Wh7 35 He2! White 19ttalian Game and Evans Gambit wins. The ideas are 35..Exe5 36 Be2 ot 35... igs 36 Hch2 £c3 37 Ned. In both cases White wins, 33...2h7 34 D\e4 EhB 35 Rxc6?! Simpler was 35 Bxd8! Sxd8 36 e6 fre 37 Wal and White wins. 35...h5 36 e6 Wh6 37 Hc3 We2 38 e7 3d1 39 Wh2 Wxh2 40 Exh2 Het 41 Ad6 Hbs 42 Dxt7+ sh7 43 Ne6 2d4 44 Dg5+ 1-0 Game 6 E.Sveshnikov-H.Stefansson Liepaja /rapid) 2004 If you compare the dates of this zame with the previous one, you will sce that Grandmaster Sveshnikow has had a last- ing passion for this rather harmless line. 1 ed e5 2 43 Ac6 3 Lcd 8.05 4 c3 DMG 5 d4 exd4 6 5 d5 7 2b5 “ed 8 cxd4 2b4+!? This simple move (parzer sces a check, patver plays a check) gives Black a sound and rather solid game. 9 a2 White has no road leading to an advan- tage, Sveshnikoy has had to realise this in his practical games, where he also tried 9 Dbd2 Bd7 10 0-0 0-0 and now at least two moves in his games: a) 1 Axed dxed 12 Ags Axes 13 Wad S&xb5 14 Wxb5 Dd3 15 Be3 We7 16 £3 c6 17 Wed b5! and Black is at least equal, E.Sveshnikov-M.Krasenkow, Vil- nius 1997, ) 11 Bd3 BES 12 We2 Bxd2 13 @xd2 By?! 14 &c3 We7 15 Bael gave White a slightly advantage in zarov, Minsk 2000, but d that it was easy for surely he reali Black to improve, as he deviated in the current game. The improvement could be 13...d824' 14 Bxed dxed 15 Wxet Bxf3 16 Wxf3 Wxd4 17 &c3 Wed with equal- ity. 9...2xd2 10 8xc6+ bxc6 11 Abxd2 cS 12 a3 12 dxe5 has been played, but I prefer not to go into the games and instead pre- sent 12..0-0!, which is a new idea. Ok, ok, here is some old stuff, but then you have to ear your greens! 12...8xc5. 13 We2 Lb6 14 Weo+ Wa7 15 Wxak 0-0 16 Bet c5 17 Whs &a6 18 Wado Ws 19 dt We2r 20 dec2 Wa3+ with equality according to Macieja, or 14..8d7 15 20Wedl5 0-0 16 0-0 Reo 17 Wee Wa3 with some compensation) 13 Wad Sb8 14 0-0 &xcd 15 Ab3 Lb6 16 Hed c5 and as | see it Black is slightly better, &xd2+ 13 Wxd2 13...c4! This move might scem surprising, but it gives Black easy equality. Optically it looks as if the pawn is placed on a wrong col oured 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 3-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 reason- able alternative 13...2g4 14 dxe5 Qxf3 15 First Steps in the Italian Game gxf3 0.0, Here White went wrong with 16 62, as after 16...He8 17 £4, Black should from B.Macicja-A.Aleksandrov, European ‘Team Championship 2003, with 17..Wd6 18 0-0-0 Wxe6+ 19 &bI Bab8 and be slightly better. If instead 16 0-0-0 We7! 17 Wd4 Babs 18 Bd2 Bb5 and Black has counterplay. 14 0-0 ibs! Black keeps an eye on the b2-pawa, which gives him good counterplay. 15 Lfel 0-0 16 We2 g6 17 Adz Wg5! 18 He3 Wg4 19 We3 c5 20 \f3 cxd4 21 2)xd4 Bb6 deviate fo 4 wage 22 Rael Or 22 b4 exb3 23 Axb3 Leb 24 Ad+ 28 with equality. 22...8e6 23 h3 Wh4 24 2d1 Ktb8 25 Ee2 38b7 %-% 21Italian Game and Evans Gambit Summary To conclude quickly on the material in this chapter: after 4 c3 then 4..We7 has a good reputation, but probably unjustly, Games 3 and 4 contain some ideas leading to an ad- vantage for White, which should be of practical importance to anyone playing the Ital- ian 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 be- cause 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 ¢4 ¢5 - ? Not many I suppose... 1 e4 e5 2 23 Ac6 3 Led &c5 4 63 (12) NC 4... We7 5 d4 .b6 6 0-0 d6 (D) 7 a4 — Game 3 Th3— Game 4 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 d5 7 &b5 Ded 8 cxd4 (LD) 8.266 — Game 5 8..Rb4+ — Game 6 22CHAPTER THREE The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game 1 24 e5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 Rod 2c5 4 c3 26 5 da exd4 In this chapter we will look at the posi- tions arising after 1 c4 e5 2 DB Ac6 3 Bct Bc5 403 AME 5 dd exd4, In the first two games we examine the Moller Attack 6 cxd4 Sb4+ 7 Ac32!. 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 little bit harshly. In this chapter we shall see that Black cqualises 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 Miller Attack is having tough times in this computer age. In Games 9 and 10 we shall examine 7 22, 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-off 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 litle more), and the greedy 6,.dxc3!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 Af3 Dc6 3.d4 This game has a slightly unusual move order. Normally we reach the position at move 5 by 3 Sic4 Sc5 4 c3 Ato 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..Axe4. And 5 b4 does not look right either, as it leads to a position from the Tvans Gambit, which is not particularly good for White. This leaves 23Italian Game and Evans Gambit only 5 d3 as a serious alternative, which is of practical value, though not really dan- gerous for Black, We will examine this move in the next chapter. 3...exd4 4 204 &c5 5 63 M6 ‘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 2b4a+ ‘This check is highly logical, and other moves are simply bad. For example: 6..8b6? 7 dd AcT 8 cb Ap 9 do cxd6 I exd6 Ac6 11 By5 ALG 12 0-0 and White is much better. ‘The main position, White has two sen- sible moves here. 7 Ac37! Objectively weak; but then objectivity has litle to do speaking, this move is with the ways of the world, who president in the US, who is s junior tournaments, and how an egg should be prepared... 7 2c3 is dangerous in practice, if Black is not well prepared for it. White’s third option, 7 @f12!, is known as the Krakow Variation. In 1909, chess players from Krakow played a thematic tournament in this line, int gating White's artacking chances. Now we know that 7 Sf1 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..2xe4?! might seem tempting, but all White’s play is based on this over- optimistic move. Taking the pawn is un- rily risky, and probably even plain bad. White can now seize the initiative by simple means: 8 d5 \e7 9 Wa4 AFG 10 Bg5 Dg6 11 Dbd2 ho 12 Belt ess 13 (though 13..8xd2 14 Bxd2 with a clear advantage to White was not particularly attractive cither) 14 &xg6t hxg5 15 c3 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 Axd5 is at least slightly better for Black. Nc3 Sc6 10 We2 Bxc3 11 bye3 Axe} 12 Wel Dds 13 £03 a6 14 Eel Wd7 and the two bishops are _ insufficient compensation for the pawn, Bartmansky- Batik, correspondence 1910. 7...Pxe4 8 0-0 2x63 Black needs to go directly for a refura 24The 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 Bxc3 10 bxc3 De7 11 Bet AG 12 dot and White is much better. 8..2)\xc3 is possible though, and then 9 bxc3 leaves us with a branching; 27/23 a) 9..&xc3 10 203! d5! (but not 10.6? 11 Hel Sa5 12 Wad ab 13 &d5 Bbo 14 Exco! &d7 15 Bel+ Wes 16 Exd6 and White wins according to Keres; or if 10.Wfoet 11 Hcl Bb4 12 Axb4 Axb4 13 Hel+ d8 14 Wd2 and White is just better) 11 2b5 &xat 12 Ael+ Seb 13 Bad Be8 14 Wed White can ly go wrong here, eg. 14 HxeG+? feb 15 Acs Wd6! 16 Bxc6+ bxc6 17 Bxd6 cxd6 18 Axc6 Hc7 and Black wins, while after 14 Elxal?! f6! White has problems to ptove compensation) 14... WF6 15 Sxc6+ (if 15 Hxal Sd7 16 Hel Sas 17 Ascot bxe6 18 2e7+ Wxe7 19 Exe? dxe7 20 Axc6 Bxc6 21 Wxc6 and White mus now fight for a draw) 15..bxc6 16 Axc6 83.17 Axa7+ G8 18 Ac6+ with per- petual check b) 9..d5! is even simpler. After 10 exb4 dse4 11 Hel+ Ac7 12 We2 Be6 13 Bs Wad (13...c6 14 Acs Ws 15 Bxe7 Vxe7 16 Axc4 gives White compensation for the pawn) 14 &xc7 Gxe7 15 We2 £6 16 45! (White must play energe keep the balance) 16....xe5 17 Bes 18 acl Back 19 Bxc6+ @d7 20 Rdl Wsdl+ 21 Wxdl+ Lxc6 22 Wyst+ Bro 23 h4 pxh4 24 Wxh4+ S96 25 West B16 26 Wr4+ 26 with a draw in O.Gadia J.De Souza Mendes, Brazilian Champion- ship 1961. 9 d5!? This is Méller’s idea; invented in 1898. Afier the rather pointless 9 bxc32! d5 Black has a perfect game, Against Lasker, in their 1896 return match, Steinitz tried to ply 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 Rade dxc4 11 Sel 5 12 Ad2 St 13 Axc4 fed 14 Bxcd Wi6 and White docs not have any form of compensation for the piece, W'Steinitz Lim.Lasker, Moscow match 1896, 9.05 This variation is not as well known in the West as 9...8.6 (as seen in the next 25Italian 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 docs 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 illu- sion. After 10 bxc3 0-0 11 Bet f6 12 d6 cxd6 13 &a3 White’s attack is very strong. b) 9.8245 is also playable, though not as good as the text move, Now 10 dxe6 bxc6 11 De5 Ad6 gives us two interest- ing options: bl) 12 Wet? Who 13 b4 2xb4 (13..Axe4 14 Axc4 Vxb4 15 Bb2 trans- poses; not 14..Wsal?? 15 Hel+ $18 16 We2 and White wins) 14 &b2 Axc4 15 Ascd We6 16 Bfet+ and, according to Mller, White has a promising attack. The analysis could continue 16..92f8 17 Wha £6 18 Ac5 fxe5 19 Wxb4+ do 20 Exe5 c5 21 Wb3 We7 22 Be3 Wxb3 23 axb3 and White has compensation enough for draw, but hardly anything more. b2) The simple exchange 12 Axf7!? Dxf7 13 VxfT+ Sxt7 14 WhS+ Sg8 15 Waa5 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 Dxe4 11 Waa 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...Ned6? Black would be made suffer for his greed with the surprising sequence 12 Wxe7 Wf6 13 Wxfo! (Black's extra piece is doing litle in the defence} 13..Axfo 14 Bel+ Dfed (14..Gf8? 15 Bh6+ G8 16 Be5 Dfed 17 Hel and White wins) 15 Dd2 £5 16 £3 0-0 17 fred Axed 18 Dxed fred 19 Exe4 and White is at least slightly better here. However, Black can choose which knight White can take by protecting the better placed of the nwo. I firmly believe thar 11.,..65! is the best way forward. Now play could continue 12 Wxc4 d6 13 Dd4 0-0 14 £3 Dc5 15 Ba3 b6 16 Lxc5 bycS 17 Ach We 18 Hfel 2d7 19 He7 Ber 20 Bact Bxc7 21 Exe7 Bd8! and Black is 26The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game for preference. 12 Wxe4 Ad6 This is stronger than 12..b52! when White can play 13 a4 c6 14 dxco d5 15 Wa3 bxa4 16 Ag5 with the initiative. 13 Wd3 b6 14 2a3 WHE 15 Wd4 y Me, White has probably enough compensa- tion to make a draw, but he (it!) will also have to prove it in practice, something computers can have great difficulties do- ing in this kind of position. Instead after 15 Kfel &b7 16 Ae5 Bad8 17 Ag Wha 18 Acs Bes 19 2xd6 cxd6 20 AB Bc8 Black is slightly better. 15...Wxd4 16 Dxd4 &b7 17 &xd6 cxd6 18 S¥5 g6 19 Dxd6 &xd5 20 Wiel e6 21 f4 a6 22 a4 a7 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 under- stand that no improvements can be made to the position, ever, as they cling to what they can calculate. After 23 Hab?! Hbs 24 c4 Hc7 25 Bed BS 26 df2 Bf 27 Bd4 the conquest of the fortress is easy: 27.,.S2eT 28 Be3 Bd5! 29 Bxd5 Bxd5 30 exd5 @xd6 and Black will win this ending with the passed pawn and good position of his rook. 23...Eb8 24 a5? ‘The computer can see that he will win back his pawn in the short erm; bur 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 Hc? 25 a5 Be 26 Exb6 Bbxb6 27 axb6 Kxb6 28 c5 Keo 29 Ha5 White would have kept good drawing chances. 24...b5 25 c4 b4 26 Sad b3 27 Had He7 28 Baxb3 Axb3 29 Hxb3 Hc5 30 Db7?! Now the white pieces will be lost in the far corner of the board. Instead 30 &f2 would have offered more resistance. 30...28xa5 should be enough to win for Black, but only after a hard fight, 30...oxc4 31 Eb6 Be2 32 Ad6 vfB 33 Exa6 25! The a-pawn is nothing but a dissident under state control. 34 g3 Zg2+ 35 f1 Exh2 36 Ha7 36 Hb6 Ha2 37 26 We7 and Black wins 27Italian Game and Evans Gambit as the a-pawn cannot escape. 36...806 37 Dc8 Eg2 38 Ab6 Sxg3 39 Dxd7+ &xd7 40 Rxd7 Bad 41 Ha? Hf3+ 42 &g2 Exf4 43 a6 Lad 44 Ga8+ deg7 45 &h2 h5 0-1 Game 8 J.Fang-A.lvanov Manchester, USA 1999 104 e5 2 AF3 cB 3 2c4 205 43 446 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 2b4+ 7 D3?! Axed 8 0-0 2xc3 9 d5 016 Just as in the previous variation, White has chances for equality. Bur this is as far as it goes if Black plays correctly. 9....£6 has been the main line of the Méller 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 Het De7 10,..0-02! 11 Eixe4 Ac? 12 d6! is a the- matic trick, when afier 12..cxd6 13 25 Doo 14 Wds White is slightly better ac cording to grandmaster Unvicker. 11 xed d6 12 2g5 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 42, but | 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 Be5 14 Axes BFS 15 He3 dxe5 16 Exe5 Wd7 we can conclude that the white king will have to surrender quite soon. 12.,.axg5 Black has no choice but to go into this forcing line. On 12....52! White has an annoying check in 13 &b5+, and after 13.818 14 He3 Bxg5 15 Dxys ho 16 D653 the initiative looks truly dangerous. 13 Dxgd 13...h6! 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 Axh7! is the only chance for a real attack. So far it has been believed to 28The 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 14,.8£5 15 Hxe7 Wye7 16 Dxf8 Bxt8 with equality is also possible). Now White continues with 15 Wh5+ y8 16 Eh4, and here Black has the choice between 16..f6 17 @d3 5 18 Be2 Bes 19 Het FB 20 BbS Bd7 21 Heb Kxb5 22 Hor with equality according to Perez, or to enter a much larger maze with 16...f5! when we have the following options: a) 17 Bel?! has the idea of 17...Be8? 18 Sco! G8 19 Bf4 Qd7 20 BB! Ags (if 20...y8 21 Hy3 wins) 21 Exf5+ fo 22 BExf6+ gxf6 (or 22. Wxfo 23 Extot gxfo 24 Wh8+ Sc7 25 We7+ Sd8 26 Wxtor &c8 27 h4 and White wins) 23 Whs+ BHT 24 Wh7t SAB 25 Be2! Axeb 26 dxe6 Exc6 27 Wh8+ Be7 28 Wo7+ Bes 29 &h5 mate. However, Black can play more strongly with 17...Qg6! 18 Bh3 Bf6! 19 Bg3 (if 19 Wh7+ GF7 20 Heo DB 21 Wh5+ 26 22 Wh8 Bxe6 23 dxed+ Bxe6 24 Qxe6+ Sxe6 and Black wins) 19.5 20 f4 7 21 Heb, and now after 21...8d7! Black retains his material advantage, in- stead of 21..8xe6? 22 dxe6 We7 23 exfT+ Bxf7 24 Bh3 Welt 25 Sel Bee 26 Whit Be 27 Wxfs+ kp8 2-4 Lopez, corre- spondence 1977. So this line does not seem to be playable for White. b) 17 Bh3? is Paul Keres’ idea, but it docs not stand the test of our time: computer analysis, cg. 17...f4 18 Wh7+ @f7 19 Whs+ g6! Gf 19.28 20 Wh7+ with equality) 20 Wh7+ &f6 21 Wh4+ g5 22 Whot Dg6 23 Bh5 Bhs 24 Wxes+ de7 25 B.d3 Wry5 26 Bxg5 Bho 27 Hel dee 28 Bxp6+ Bxy6 29 Sxg6 xg6 and Black should win. ©) The best option by far is 17 Wh7+ WET 18 Bho Byes 19 Bel when Black has: cl) 19...8d72? loses to the fabulous 20 Heol! Qxe6 21 dxe6+ We8 22 Hy6 d5 23 Exg7 Wado 24 Hxg8+ Axy® 25 Wert dB 26 BS? (or 26 Wxg8+ Be? 27 Wi7+ BdB 28 Bxd5 We7 29 Wys+ Wes 30 We5+ We7 31 Wx65) 26...c6 27 Wxe8+ He7 28 Wrad exb5 29 Wxb7+ Pxe6 30 Wxb5 and White wins. 2) 19...2f8 is met by 20 &h3 &d7 21 Bhe3 Ac8 22 Bd3 g6 23 h4 He? 24 Wh8+ By8 with equality according to Sovin. 29Italian Game and Evans Gambit 3) 19... AWB! i ing to my ana reorganise his then: 31) 20.,.d7?! (complicared but infe- rior) 21 Hhe3 Ag6! (necessary if Black is to play for a win; certainly not 21...2e8? 22 &c2!! when Black has no decent de- fence against 23 @h5) 22 Heo! (appar- ently forced; if 22 Wh5? Eh8 23 Be7+ Wye7 24 Exe7+ &f6!! and Black wins, or 22 Hg3 Ars 23 Wh4 g5! 24 Bxps Exgs 25 Wxg5 Deo and Black’s advantage is close to decisive) 22..2xe6 23 dxe6+ eT 24 Wxy6 Bhs 25 Wy3 c6 when White retains some compensation. 32) 20..€2f6! 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, eg. if 21 Hhe3? Eh8! and Black wins instantly. Instead White can try 21 Wh4+ g5 22 Wd4+ dg6 23 Wal 4 24 Bhe3 Hp? 25 We2 Ags 26 Ec8 WE and here Black will win because of 27..2)f6 and White has no counterplay for the piece. | am not too cager to risk my reputation by giving a elcar evaluation of this line, since maybe White has a way to strengthen his attack earlier on? I be- lieve in Black’s position, but one unpre- dictable tactic could turn everything up- side down. And anyway, White can possibly im- prove earlier with 20 &b5! Zh8 21 Wxhs gexh6 22 Wh7+ 6 23 Exe7 Wre7 24 Wsh6+ and equality according to Keres. Ttlooks as if the simple 20...61? questions this, but here White can play 21 Bee6! axb5 22 Bhfo+ Se8 23 Bxf8+ Bxf8 24 Exe7+! xe7 25 Wxyg7+ Hey 26 We5+ the best chance accord- . Here White can try to troops with 20 8h3 and Sts 27 Was+ Ye7 28 We5+ Bh7 29 Wh5+ G8 30 Wy5+ By7 31 Wds+ &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 Qb5+H1 Bd7 15 We2 Kxb5 16 Wxb5+ Wd7 17 We2 dere! 18 DB x5 and White has no compensation. b) 14 Wh5 0-0 15 Bact AES (simpler is 15..Ag6! 16 AB Whe 17 Adt 2d7 when a pawn is a pawn) 16 AEB (or 16 Dn3? Bd7 17 Df4 with the initiative, e.g, 17..Wg5 18 Wes hxgs 19 Deb feb 20 dxe6 Qe8 21 e7+ HE7 22 4 etc) 16...W6? (and here 16...e6! 17 We4 a7, though White has some compensation for the material after 18 H4e2 Wo 19 £2.43 Bae8 20 Wb4 Hxe2 21 Bxc2) 17 p4 g6 18 Wh3 De7 19 Wxho Wxt3 20 Hes DES 21 Wxf+ dexfB 22 Exf3 and White wins, J.Majewski-P.Biclak, _correspon- dence 1992. ©) 14 Dxe7al Sxt7 15 WH+ DES (not 15,9298? 16 Hacl or 15...8y6?? 16 Exe7 and White wins, while if 15...2.£5? 16 Bact g6 17 g4 with a strong attack) 16 30The Méller Attack and the Classical Italian Game got Hest Ge 16..Wys2! 17 Shi BK 18 exfS &xfS 19 Ket Wro 20 Bf g6 21 2d3 e722 Bx gxf5 23 Wh3 b6 24 We2 and White has the initiative) 17 gxf5 £p8 and Black is better. 14...nxg5 15 He £e6 16 dxe6 16 16...f52 17 Bd4 c6 gives equality ac- cording to ECO, but after the not too difficult 18 Wa2! d5 19 Wxes Wao 20 Eh4 0-0-0 21 &d3 White is better. 17 He3 c6 18 Zh3 If 18 243 We7 19 h3 d5 20 b4 a5 21 b5 c5 and Black is much better. 18...Bxh3 19 gxh3 g6 20 Wd2 After 20 We3 Wa5S 21 Bar Wes 22 Wh3 bd 23 fl Wes 24 Ha3 Bus 25 Be3 We5 Black is close to winning. 20...d5 21 Wc3 d4 22 Wt3 Was 23 Be2 WS Black is close to winning here too, 24 Wa3 Wa! Stronger than 24...b1+2! which could lead to 25 Sg2 DFS 26 £3 Dh4+? (here 26..Wel with an attack is still OK, though not as good as the game move) 27 f2 Whi 28 Wd6! with sudden counter- play. 25 &d3 15 26 Wic5 bé 27 Wc4 0-0-0 28 ad 2h8! Now everything is over and done with. 29 a5 Exh3 30 Het b5 31 We2 Wxh2+ 32 Sf1 Wh1+ 33 be2 WI3+ 34 wd2 Wxf2+ 35 hd1 Wxc2+ 36 &xc2 &e7 37 b4 &d6 0-1 Game 9 E.Van den Doel-I.Sokolov Dutch Championship, Leeuwarden 2004 1 ed e5 2 Af3 DAc6 3 Bc4 &c5 4 c3 O46 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 &b4+ 7 2d2 Natural and sound. Tx 2+ Though very logical, this is not Black’s only option in this position. He has also tried: 31Italian Game and Evans Gambit a) 7..Axed 8 Bxb4 Axb4 9 Axf7+ (otherwise White has nothing, c.g. 9 Wb3 d5 10 Wxb4 dxc4 11 0-0 Wdo 12 Wxed 0-0 13 De3 with equality, but even this is not too dangerous) 9...82xf7 10 Wh3+ d5 (Black can also try 10...8f8 11 Wxb4+ We7 12 Wxe+ Sxe7 13 0-0 with equal- ity) 11 DcS+ Be! (but nor 11..G62 12 13 Ddo 13 Wxb4 2F5 14 0-0 and White is better) 12 Wxb4 c5 13 Wa3 cxd4 14 AB Who 15 0-0 SI7 16 Ac5+ (nor 16 Mod22! Hes 17 Wh3 Dxd2 18 Wad5+ 26 19 Wht Bp8 20 Axd2 Wrxb2 21 AB 2 and Black is close to winning, Gls lear, British Championship 2002) 16..8e6 (again 16.8162 is strongly met by 17 £3! Sexe5 18 fxed dxe4 19 We7+ Bus 20 Bys+ edo 21 Wet Bd7 22 Weed and Black has a hard life, while if 18..d3+ 19 ht dxe4 20 We7+ Bc6 21 Ac3 Bhys 22 Ba wins) and now White can choose between 17 3. with cqualiry, and 17 Ad3, which gives compensation is the following, wa 17..He8 18 Bel Gf7 19 £3 Dd6 20 Exes xe 21 Dd2 215 22 Bel+ G7 23 Bes, b) 7..d5! is a little known, but decent alternative. Afier 8 exd5 &2xd2+ White can vary from the standard 9 @\bxd2 with 9 Wxd2, though after 9...2)xd3 100-0 0-0 11 \c3 Dee? 12 Bfel c6 13 Med h6 14 3 2F5 Black has equality, A.Schwenk LKrasenkova, Baden Baden 1993. 8 \bxd2 d5 8...Axe4 looks rempting, but White re acts energetically with 9 d5! @)xd2_ 10 Wxd2 Ac7 11 d6 cxd6 12 Wxd6 b5 (or 12..D65 13 Wes+ We7 14 0-0-0 with an attack according to Makarychev) 13 &b3 0-0 14.00.05 15 Bfel a4 16 Bc2 Ago 17 Axg6 hxg6 18 Wye3 and White had com- pensation in A/Tzermiadianos- V.Kotronias, Athens 1998. even more tempting 18 He7!? Ba6 19 Wo4 d5 20 eS f6 21 Be3 Was 22 Wad Ed8 23 Bacl White has compensation for the pawn. 9 exd5 A)\xd5, Iso after the 10 Wb3 Some players are aftaid of 10 0-0) 0-0 11 Ac5!?, but Black has two sensible ways of ensuring himself an equal game a) 11...Axe5 12 dxed De 13 Dcd Wer 14 Wea Zd8 15 Wes Weed 16 Axed b6 17 Badt &F5 18 Bao c5 19 De7 Habs with equality, T.Lovholt-R.Monner Sans, correspondence 1995. 32The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game b) H.Axd4 12 Ab3 Axb3 13 Sxd5 Wo! (13..Axal? 14 Qxf7+ Shs 15 Wh5 is a famous attack that even defeated the great Capablanca) 14 &xf7+ (not 14 @xf? Bxal! and White has nothing) 14..00x€7 15 Wxb3 Wxe5! and Black had equalised in P.Figueiredo-A.Percira, Vila Nova de Gaia 2004, because of 16 Eacl This is a little bit passive, after which White ma to organise some small pressure, The stronger 10...4a5! is inves tigated in the next game. However, the text move does has the advantage of de- nying White the possibility of repeating the position, as he can after 10...2a5. 110-0 0-0 12 Afe1 c6 13 Aed Abe 13...8Hb6 is best met by 14 @c3 (not 14 Wa3 Bod 15 Dcs Wxd4 16 Ad6 Seo 17 @®xb7 DgG with equality, E.Sveshnikov V.Chekhov, Sochi 1983) 14...!xb3_ 15 Sxb3 Bed 16 Axd5 Axd5 17 Sixd5 exd5 18 Bc7 and White has a slight ad vantage according to Makarychev 14 2d3 the b6 White is slightly better here knight is passive. 14...Ded5 15 Dc5 Xb8 16 Mac?! ‘This allows Black to become active a bit too easily. 1 suggest 16 We: improvement, ‘Then after 16..h6 17 a3 D4 18 Vh7+ Bhs 19 Sed Wee 20 b4 ds 21 Bact White keeps some pressure. 16.214 17 61 Or 17 Qe4 Qy4 18 b3 Bxf3 19 Wet Wes 20 @h2 Hfd8 21 Scd1 with equality. 17.46 18 Des Wigs 19 WES £6 k is seemingly nor completely for cused on the need to secure counterplay immediately, Best was 19...d&b3! 20 g3 Dds and Black cqualises. For example, after the aggressive 21 4 Afd 22 Ded Who 23 25 Wh4 24 Wy3 Wxp3+ 25 bxys Neb 26 Hc3 G5 and Black is fine. 20 Aed3 Abd5 21 Axf4 Axf4 22 h4 Wh6 23 g3 Ad5 24 Se4 Ab6 25 Wb3+ &eh8 26 Wa3 a8 27 We3? A strange mistake, After 27° & White is much better, preparing the inva sion of the seventh rank, and keeping, all the black pieces tied down. 27...Wxe3 28 Exe3 Ze8 29 Feel Ded 30 K3e2 Dd6 31 243 Rxe2 32 Yxe2 eg8 33 6.02 Now White is looking for a draw. In- stead after 33 G2 b6 34 Ac6 2b7 Black 33Italian Game and Evans Gambit has counterplay. 33...b6 34 2b3+ 218 35 Des+ 2xe6 36 Hxe6 Af5 37 Exc6 \xd4 38 He7 A\xb3 39 axb3 Hd8 40 Exa7 Hd3 41 Ha3 bS 42 b4 Kaa 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 h5 44 wg2 #7 45 243 Hea 46 &e3 95 47 £4? ‘This merely creates a lot of weaknesses in his own camp, Instead after 47 hxg5 fxp5 48 Bc3 Bxb4 49 Bes def6 50 Boot BH 51 Hcd+ Het 52 B+ Cred 53 Bxpst+ @h4 54 Bel Bxb2 55 f4 Bb3+ 56 Sed White is safe. 47...gxh4 48 gxh4 deg6 49 Bc3 Bxb4 50 Hc5 2b3+ 51 wed Rxb2 52 15+ &h6 53 Lc6? White could do much better with 53 BB Bb4 54 Gy3 Hott 55 Hh3 b4 56 Ec6 p7 57 Hc7+ Yf8 58 Bb7 Bc4 59 g3 Hc3+ 60 SF2 b3 61 Bho Le7 62 Ze6+ GE7 63 Hb6 Kh3 when he can fin- ish up in the endgame with f- and h- pawns, one that offers excellent drawing chances. 53...Rb4+ 54 &f3? ‘This makes it easier, but it was already too late to save the game. If 54 @d5 Bxh4 55 Bxfs+ dep5 56 BB Bh2 57 £6 Sy6 58 He5 Be2+ 59 Bid b4 60 SF Bel 61 Bb8 Bb1 62 Hho b3 63 p3 h4+ 64 @h3 b2 65 Sh2 h3 66 £7+ Bxf7 67 2b3 <2f6 and Black wins. 54...Bxh4 55 Bxf6+ &g5 56 Zg6+ &xf5 57 Kb6 Bb4 0-1 Game 10 J.Marsden-J.Sutton Correspondence 2001 1 ed e5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 Ac4 Bcd 43 46 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 2b4+ 7 2d2 &xd2+ 8 Abxd2 d5 9 exdd Axd5 10 Wb3 10...a5! ‘This move secures Black equality, but also allows White to repeat the position. 11 Wad+ A)c6 Forced, After 11...c6?! 12 @xd5 Wad5 13 Eel! Black is in trouble, e.g. 13...Wb5 14 Wxb5 cxb5 15 d5 ¥e7 16 b4 Ded 17 xed bxcd 18 Bxcd Ld6 19 0-0 and White has a clear advantage. 12 2b5 12 Wb3!? would repeat the position, 34The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game but here White is looking for more. 12...8d7 After the anti-positional 12...0-02! 13 xc6 bxe6 14 0-0 Af4 15 Bfet Be6 16 Wesco 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 Wb3?! We7+ 14 BF1 Be6! White does not have com- pensation for the bad position of his king, E.Sveshnikov-F.Mortensen, — Leningrad 1984. 13...0-0 14 Bfe1 a6 15 21 265 This is better than 15..cb4 16 Wb3 2.1517 Bact a5 18.23.24 19 Wed Acé 20 Ws Bc8 21 Det Has 22 Wd3 Bt5 23 Wd2 and White has a small edge, P.Morssink-E.Van der Bij, correspon- dence 1990, 16 act Also after 16 Wb3! Hb8 17 Badi Wado 18 a3 there is nothing but equality. 16...Db6 17 Wa3! White trics to sacrifice a pawn to get the initiative. 17...Dxd4 18 Dxdd Wxd4 19 Db3 Maybe there was more play in 19 @f3!? Wado 20 Wc5 with compensation, 19...Wd6 20 Wxd6 cxd6 21 Hed1 d5 22 Ac5 Afc8 23 Axb7 Bc2 24 He2 He7 25 Dab 2d7 26 Ab3 AbS %-% Game 11 D.Hergott-G.Garcia Linares 1994 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 &c4 2c5 43 46 5 d4 exd4 6 0-0 ew Se 4 a Sx EA 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...A)xe4 Others: a) 6..d52! is very dangerous. After 7 exdS Axd5 8 Hel+ Be6 9 Ags White has the advantage, e.g. 9..0-0 10 Wd3 g6 11 Exe6! fxe6 12 Wh3 We7 13 Wreot+ Wxe6 14 Bxe6 and White was better in Y.Fsstrin-S,] tic, correspondence 1967. b) 6..d3 has been played in some re- cent 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 7558 &xd3 Dod 9 We2 We7 10 4 35Italian 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 @xe2 Axf6 White should secure a clear edge with 13 &xc7!. ©) 6..dxe3 looks risky, but after 7 ¢5!? <5! Black is doing all right. 8 23 can be met strongly with 8...c2! 9 Bxc2 Aed 10 Ac3 xc3 11 bxc3 Bed when White's compensation is in doubt, J.Blauert- D.Belotelov, Budapest 1997. 7 cxd4 d5! ‘The only move, 7.72! 8 d5 Ab8 9 Hel Ado (or 9...Af6? 10 d6 cxd6 11 BS 0-0 12 Sxe7! xe? 13 Dc3 gives White a whirlwind initiative) 10 &d3 0-0 11 Ac3 and White has very pleasant. compensa- tion for the pawn. 8 dxc5 No choice. 8...dxe4 White has tried several moves in this position, but none that leads to anything better than a struggle (often successful) for equality, 9 Wxd8+ a) 9 We2 We7!? (more ambitious than the old move 9...4d3, eg. 10 Kel (5 11 De3 0-0 12 Dyed fred 13 Weed 215 Ya-Yo T.L.Petrosian-A.Grischuk, Internet (blitz) 2004; White is certainly not better here, but probably not worse either) 10 Wed (if 10 Bel Axcd 11 Wxe4 Leo! and Black is better — Lukacs) 10...@xc5 (or 10...£5!? — Lukacs) and now 11 31? was suggested by Golod, intending 11..De6 12 c3 with compensation, but here 12...Wb4! seems to give White prob- lems proving this. Black is a little better. b) 9 Wet We? 10 Ac3 Axc3 11 Wxc3 0-0 12 Wxed &c6 was pleasandy 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...exd8, Axd8? is just wrong, After 10 Bel £3 11 Ay5 0-0 12 Axed fxe4 13 Hxed Be6 14 De3 BAT 15 V4 Deb 16 Led White dominated in | .Barczay-L.Karsa, Hungarian Championship 1980. 10 Rd1+ White has also tried 10 Ags Axes 11 Bxg5+ £6 12 Rdl+ (after 12 264 Abs 15 a3 Dd3 14 Bfdt Sd7 15 Bg3 Axb2 16 Hd4 Bek 17 Axcd Axc4 18 Exed a5 19 Bel He8 Black was a pawn up with opposite-coloured bishops in D.Dumi- trache-Kr.Georgiev, Athens 1992; with accurate play and help from the oppo- nent, Black managed to gain a full point) 12...8d7 13 &.£4 Abd! (the way to ensure an advantage) 14 Ac3 Ad3 15 Be3 Axch 16 Edd Deb 17 Bxct J.Blauert-G.Yon — Biilow, German Bundesliga 1998, when Black has many ways fo try to win with his extra pawn. 10...2d7 10...8e8 is met by 11 Bel £5 12 Ac3 and White is OK. was 36The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game 11 £e3 After 11 a3 AxcS Black is just a pawn up, while 11 Ags Dsy5 12 Bxp5+ Bc8 13 Da3 Leo 14 Ab5 a6 15 Dds @xd4 16 Bxd4 a5 17 Hadi f6 18 &d2 Ea6 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...268 Black can also play for an advantage with 11.827! and then after 12 Abd2 (if 12 Da3 c3! 13 bxc3 Axc3 14 Bd3 Des 15 Hel 2c6 and Black had a slight edge in K.Honfi Hungary 1970) 12..Axd2 13 Axd2 Qe6 14 Bdel (as in amos Suria-A.Sorin, Seville 1989) 14,.Qe5 15 £4 Dd3 16 He3 b5 17 exb6 axb6 18 Axcd 2xc4 19 Excd c5 allows White 10 regain his pawn, but his pieces are very badly coordinated and his posi- tion full of weaknes 12 Bel 12 Ba3 is weaker, when 12...c3 13 b3 e8 14 Hdel Ab4 15 Act Ads 16 Bd4 Df4 17 Bcd BS 18 23 Aco 19 Bxc3 axed gave Black a very clear edge in P.Tishin-O.Karpeshov, 2002. 18...8d8 was even stronger, when Black is Samara, just winning, 12...2e6 13 a3 ¢3 14 bxc3 b6 Although natural, this seems a bit too carly. Instead 14...Ee8! was a useful wait- ing move, when White is desperately fighting for cquality, and will probably be unsuccessful. 15 Ad4 &d7 16 Abs 16 £3 Axc5 was a litde better for Black in N.Kopylov-M.Govbinder, cosrespon- dence 1976, 16...8e8 17 Zab1 Eb8 18 AbS bxc5 19 a5? 19 Dxc5! Axc5 20 Sxc5 was neces- sary, when the game is level after 20...2.5 21 Bb3 &c2 (21...He2!? 22 Axa7+ Axa? 23 Bxa7 Ba8 24 Ldd Baxa2 gives a bit more play, but it is still a dead draw) 22 Dxa7i! DAxa7 23 Bxa7 Kxb3 24 Axbs Sxa2 25 Ma7 with a draw. 19...a6 19,.2xb5! was very strong, White has no choice but to enter a ridiculous end- game with 20 2xb5 a6 21 Axc6 axb5 22 a5 when Black’s extra pawn should tell. 20 Axc6 &xc6 21 a3?! 37Italian Game and Evans Gambit White had to play 21 4a7+ Sd? 22 Exb8 Exb8 23 8 Ado 24 &xc5 when Black is better, but not too much. 21...8xb1 22 Axb1 4)\d6 23 c4 D5 24 &xc5 HeS 25 2f8 Ah4 26 &xg7 gS 27 2f6 Bxg2+ 28 &f1 Bxh2 29 he2 Af3 30 Dc3 30 &c3 was slightly better, but the po- ad for White anyway. 30...2h6! 31 2hB He6+ 32 ted3 ed7 33 Dd5 h5 34 Bh1 h4 35 Bh3 2xd5 36 cxd5 Eh6 37 297 Eh5! Black has a lot of nice options, eg. 37..2g5 38 Bh2 Bd6 with a clear extra pawn. After the text White has no choice but to enter a bad rook endgame. 38 Exf3 h3 39 Se5 Exe5 40 Exh3 Exd5+ 41 &e3 White has drawing chances, but in practical terms, it is hard to defend. 41...2f5 42 Hd3+ &c6 43 £3 b5 44 d2 c5 45 Bb3+ wad 46 Me3 Bu5+ 47 2c2 Sf5 48 &d2 a5 49 de3 &b4 50 Xb3+ dc4 51 Sa3 bS 52 Mb3+ &c6 53 ad HeS+ 64 of4 Hds 55 bs Ed7 Stronger was 55..Jhd4+ 56 Se5 Hxad 57 BS Hdd 58 Bxi7 Bu7 59 Brot eb5 and Black should win. 56 de3 c4 57 Ke8+ nea 57...ed5 Sacrificing the a-pawn seems a bit un- necessary. 58 Za8 do5 59 Exa5+ cb4 60 Has 3 61 Rc8 &b3 62 a5 c2 63 a6 &b2 64 HbB+ &c1 65 we2 Ha7 66 Xb6 {5 67 wel £4 68 we2 Ha8 69 wet He8+ 70 df2 Ha8 70..d8 71 Gel Bd3 72 a7 He3+ 73 £2 Ba 74 Bb7 is also a draw. 71 el Ha7 72 ve2 He7+ 73 &f2 Be3 74 a7 Ha3 75 Rb7 &d2 76 8d7+ &c3 77 Bc7+ b2 78 Bb7+ kal 79 Be7 b1 80 Bb7+ a1 81 Be7 Haz?! Why not just accept that the position is now drawn? 82 a8W Exa8 83 Hxc2 &b1 84 Ket Ha2+ 85 Sf1 &b2 86 Lxi4 &c3 87 Hig4 &d3 88 Hg2 fat+ 89 wf2 haa? 89...Ba2+ 90 &y3 Bas still draws. Af ter the text suddenly White is winning. 90 Hg5! Ha8 91 g3 Ha7 92 bga Ha8 93 f4 Hai 94 Hes Hg1+ 95 25 tig8 96 He6 f8+ 97 &g5 Kg8+ 98 Rg6 Hf8 99 15 Sd5 100 He6 Hg8+ 101 246 Hf8+ 102 96 Bg8+ 103 This assault should not be dangerous for Black. ‘Ihe 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...a5 5 d3 dé 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...a6, discour- aging b2-b4, as the bishop can then re- treat to a7 in one go. 8 b5 e7 8..Ab8!? is less popular, though still good, eg, 9 0-00-0 10 2g5 h6 11 Bh4 95 12 &¢3 Sed and the position is equal according to Unzicker. 90-0 Against 9 @bd2, 9...c6! achieves equal- ity directly, based on 10 bxc6 bxc6 11 0-0 0-0 12 2a3 Bb8 13 &b3 Ago and Black is alright. The solid 9...0-0 is also fine, e.g. 10 a2 Avo 11 Dc4 Bc5 12 0-0 Reb 13 4 exd4 14 cxd4 2b4 15 d5 &d7! (infe- rior is 15...8.¢4 16 h3 &xt3 17 Wxf3 and White was slightly better in 1.Psakhis- S.Skembris, Beersheba 1993) 16 Wa4 Bes 17 Bg5 Bc5 18 Bxt6 Wet 19 Wxfo gxf6 20 Hfel De5 with equality. 9...0-0 10 Abd2 10 &g521 Dgo 11 Dh4 Shs 12 Axeor 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 Be3 6 14 We2 d5 Black has an initiative. 10...Ag6 11 2b3 11 2232! would be a mistake, as Black can exploit the absence of the bishop from the kingside with 11..Ah5 12 d4 Dhf4 13 dxc5, and now the aggressive 13....241 is strongest. White has the following. discouraging opportunities: a) 14 We2 Wa7 15 Sh 2x63 16 Ax! Wed 17 Del Axc5 18 (3 Wh4 19 y3 Wh3 and Black had an attack in V.Cordeiro- J Soberano, correspondence 1996. b) 14 g3 Axed 15 yxf4 Bxf3 16 Axl @xc4 17 Was Axa3 18 Bxa3 Wee 19 5 26 20 Wxb7 gxtS 21 c4 Bh8 22 Shi Bac8 23 exf Hy8 and Black was much better in the top level game, C.Lutz- A.Khalifman, Wij 45Italian Game and Evans Gambit ©) 14 exd6 cxd6 15 Wh3 is probably White’s best option, though after 15...MHEG Black has perfect compensation for the pawn. 11.267! Seemingly a move, but in reality the position is sharper than it appears at first sight. White is coming found 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 alterna- tive, After something like 12 2a3 Xe8 13 exd5 Axd5 14 Des h6 Black is alright, eg. 15 g3 Bet 16 Ado cxd6 17 Bxd5 Wa7 etc. b) 11..c6 is also better, when the posi tion after 12 bxc6 bxc6 13 d4 Sp4 14 We2 should be equal. Then Black can try 14... DF4I? 15 dxeS dxe5 16 AxeS Le2 17 Dadf3 AohS 18 Ket Axf3 19 Axes WaT when he has compensation for the pawn according to Greenfeld. I am a litle sus- harmless developing picious about this, but maybe it is worth a go? 12 Ned d5 13 exd5 Dxd5 14 We2 A. simple alternative here was 14 Axbo!? cxb6 15 Ags Ags 16 Axes Dxe6 17 Ba3 and White is berter. But Yudasin was no doubt looking forward to skating around on the light squares. 14..Ddf4 15 Sxf4 &xc4 16 &xcd Axa 17 g3?! This is slightly inaccurate, White is still better after the text move, but more ener- getic was 17 fet! He 18 d4 exd4 19 Fxc8+ Wxe8 20 Bel and Black is in trou- ble. After the only move 20.968 (if 20,..De6 21 cxd4 Wa7 22 WES and White is much better) 21 WS Ac6 22 Rxe6 fxe6 23 Wxeo+ WE7 24 Wed Has (not 24...dxc3? 25 Dg5l! Wxi2+ 26 Phi 6 27 We7 and White wins) 25 cxd4 White has a clear advantage. 17..Ag6 18 We2 Wd6 19 Wes c6 20 Hab1 3abs 21 Ws We?! 21..2d8! was necessary; after 22 bxc6 bxc6 23 Exbs Wxbs 24 d4 26 White is better, but Black can hold the position. 22 Whs Or 22 Wxf6 gxf6 23 d4 and White is 46The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3 much better, But White wants to keep the queens and the pressure on. 22...h6 23 Dd2 zh7 24 ed We7 25 WS We7 26 WhS We7 27 h4 Ans 28 Wi5+ 962? A forgivable blunder, but also after 28...2g8 29 Le2 White has a clear advan- tage. 29 Wd7! 28 The point is 29...Wxd7 30 Dfo+ dg7 31 Dxd7 and White wins. 30 bxc6 Wxd7 31 cxd7 wg7 32 Hb5 1-0 Game 15 V.Nevednichy-Z.Gyimesi Miskole 2004 1 ed 05 2 D3 Ac6 3 Lcd 2c5 4 b4 b6 5 ad a6 6 c3 Af6 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, 43 D6 5 d3 dG 6 b4 Bb6 7 a4, the move here would have been 7...a62!, which in my opinion is weaker than 7..a5. Black should not allow White to occupy all this space on the queenside. 8 Wb3 1 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 dl jimpler is 8 0-0 0-0 9 a5 a7, when we have a branching: a) 10 Abd2 Dc7 11 Bb3 Ayo 12 Acd Bes 13 Eel h6 was played in C.Lutz- P.lcko, Cap d’Agde 1994, and now 14 De3 Aa 15 Bb1 gives White some ad- vantage. b) 10 Bet ho 11 Dbd2! (11 3 is only required in this structure if you want to play d3-d4; here Black can reply 11...2)h5! 12 d4 WE6 13 2e3 Ata with unclear play, G.Timoshenko-P,Jaracz, Koszalin 1999) 11..De7 12 AFL Ap6 13 Dg3 and White is slightly better. 8 2.g5?! is weaker, as it can be strongly met by 8..h6! 9 Q2h4 g5, where Black exploits the fact that he has not yet cas- tled kingside. After 10 8¢3 Dh5 11 h4 pt 12 Dh2 Bes 13 AFl Wo Black was much better in J-Timman-J.Smejkal, Wijk aan Zee 1975. 8...0-0 8..4He7 9 0-0 a5!? is also interesting, ‘This seems reasonable even with a lost 47Italian Game and Evans Gambit tempo. (..a7-a6-a5), might not be too well placed on b3 here. After 10 b5 Dd’ 11 Dbd2 0-0 we have an unclear game, though White can avoid it by flicking in 9 4 9 a5 @a7 10 0-0 Ae7 11 A\g5 Also after 11 2c3 c6!? 12 &xa? Hxa7 13 Wc2 would White have no advantage. 11...We8 12 2€3 c6 13 Oxa7 xa7 14 d4 as the white queen 14...exd4 Here Black can sharpen the game with 14..Dg6!? 15 dxed AxeS 16 f4 Axc4 17 Wyc4 ho 18 Wa4 Ba8 19 5 with an un- clear position. 15 exd4 h6 16 e5 hxg5 17 exf6 gxf6 18 2d2 d5 19 0d3 A\g6 20 We2 Ara 21 g3?! White is too optimistic here, hoping his siructure will prove superior. The simple 21 Efet Wa7 22 Be3 was better, when the position is unclear. 21...Dxd3 22 Wxd3 Here it looks as if White is much bet- ter, His main plan is to play a game of hide and scek 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... Hi 7 t te s ot ok 22...b5!! 23 axb6 White needs to test Black's idea. After 23 Efe) Ke7 24 Be3 Hxe3 25 fixed Weo 26 Wb3 Bek 27 Rel £5 Black is at least slightly better. 23...%e7! White can surely still save the game, but now it is very difficult 24 Bfel &g7 Fe cs Zs 2 25 Af1? This is too passive. White needs some counterplay, which could be obtained with 25 &b31, even though after 25... Wd7 26 AcS Wh3 27 Wel Wh5 28 Axab (28 £312, with the idea of WE2, is probably much better and should give White some 48The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3 chances) 28..2h8 29 Wy2 2h3 30 pa! Rxpdt 31 Acd 263 32 Wy3 5 33 Dd3 Red 34 Dt4 Wh4 Black’s attack is very unpleasant. 25...d7 26 We3 Also after 26 Sel Bxcl 27 Exel Wb7 28 De3 Web6 29 We3 @d7 30 Sal Abs 31 Ac2 2.65 32 Dc3 Bed Black would be much better. 26...Efe8! 27 Wxc6 Wh3 28 We3 White cannot play 28 b5? because of 28... 29 b7 (or 29 bxab Led) 29..Re4 30 £3 @xf3 31 He2 Be2 and Black wins. 28.94 29 b7 2e2 30 Ke2 Exb7 31 dxe2? White is falling over, but after 31 £3 Bbe7 Black would also be close to win- ning, 31...lxe2 32 Sxa6 0-1 Since Black wins after both 32...85 and 32..dhe7. Game 16 S.Movsesian-A.Morozevich Prague (rapid) 2002 1 e4 eS 2 Af3 Ac6 3 Bcd 2c5 40-0 46 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 &b3 Ba7 8 Abd2 ho?! intending ...g7 g5 Black will not man- has one major defe age to create an attack, but instead will just weaken his own position, e.g, 9 Kel 25 10 DEL y4 11 D3d2 Dn5 12 Act Ata 13 Bc3 b5 14 Da3 Wis 15 Bas Ba7 16 Dc2 Bxe3 17 Acxe3 h5 18 a4 and White had the advantage in D.King-V.Hort, Dortmund 1988. Tad ‘this is a harmless sideline which gives Black good chances. 7...a6 7..05'? is also fine, e.g. 8 Mbd2 Ba7 9 &b3 Dns 10 Ac4 Who 11 DAtxcd Axed 12 Axes Wxed 13 d4 Wxe4 14 Wehd Le6 with equality, J.Speeiman-B.Gulko, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990. 8 Abd2 White can exchange the strong dark- squared bishop with 8 2¢3, but after 8...8xe3 9 fxe3 d5 Black should be OK, eg. 10 exd5 Dxd5 11 We2 Be6 12 Dbd2 We7 13 Bb3 Hae8 14 Wr2 f5 15 Eacl with unclear play in D.Barua-G.Milos, 49Italian Game and Evans Gambit Moscow Olympiad 1994. 8...2a7 9He1 9 a5 Ae7 is a standard plan to remem- ber. Le is a very good way to get some attacking chances as Black. Now after 10 Hel Ago 11 DFl Be8 12 2b3 ho 13 Be3 2e6 the position is equal. In the game Black finds another way to create attacking chances. 9...2g4! 10 He2 Lh8 11 h3 Ah6 12 D1 £5! A critical position. 13 &xh6 This is probably the soundest decision in this position. White has also tried: a) 13 exfSe! Axf5 14 By5 Wes 15 d4 Wo6 and Black is at least slightly better, D.Barua-M.Adams, Bayswater 1989. b) 13 d4? faxed 14 Bxed d5 15 Bg5 and now 1.Psakhis-J.Hector, Palma de Mal- lorca 1989, continued 15..dxe4? 16 &xd8 Exd8 17 DpS exd4 18 cxd4 Bxd4 19 We2 25 with an unclear game, For some strange reason Black feared taking the pieces. I have checked this position with Fri 8 for hours, and even though we are talking about very strong play is anything but an illusion after 1 16 Axe5 Axed 17 HxeS dxc4 18 gxho 19 We2 Wao. 13...gxh6 14 exfS Oxf5 15 2d5 296 16 Wd2 Wie 17 Dg3 Wra 18 Wxta Exfa 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 1 usually prefer Black for practical reasons, simply because it is easier to play with the initiative than against it. 19 £47! White goes wrong straight away! Better was 19 Aed!? BhS 20 Aed2 Baf8 21 b+ Dds 22 b5 c6 23 bxcb bxeb 24 Bcd aS 50