The Urusov Gambit [Michael Goeller]

The Urusov Gambit - Introduction

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

s

Introduction T he main line of the Urusov Gambit is reached after 1. e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3. Documented by Ponziani in the 18th century, the gambit was first analyzed in 1857 by Prince Sergei Urusov (sometimes rendered "Urusoff" or "Ouroussoff"), a friend of Tolstoy and one of the best Russian players of the mid-nineteenth century after Petrov. Petrov. Few of Urusov's Urusov's games games survive, and none with his gambit, but for an example of his play see UrusovPetrov, Warsaw 1859 (or download a PGN file of his games and those of his brother compiled by Max Burkett). Perhaps the earliest surviving example of the gambit was played by Urusov's secretary, Ignatz Van Kolisch, in Kolisch-Paulsen, London 1861. 1861. T he Urusov has been popular among attacking players for nearly 150 years. Adopted by Keidanski Keidanski,, Schlechter Schlechter,, Tartakower,, Caro Tartakower Caro,, and Mieses Mieses,, the opening claimed victims among the best defenders of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including Steinitz and Lasker Lasker.. By 1924 there was enough interest in the line that a thematic tournament was organized in New York featuring Marshall Marshall,, Torre Torre,, and Santasiere (see the Dimock Theme Tournament web site for more details). More recently, correspondence players have explored the opening's many forcing lines, and Yakov Estrin (World Correspondence Champion from 1975 to 1980) published several monographs that carried the analysis into the the middlegame. middlegame. Estrin's analysis revealed, however, a possible equalizing method for Black (with Panov's 4....d5) and suggested that some of the deepest lines might end in equality with best play. With that the opening fell into disfavor at the highest levels of master competition, competition, and today it is mostly seen in club play, where it racks up quick scores against inexperienced or unprepared opponents.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/index.html (1 of 2)28/09/06 07:08:59

I n d e x o f L in in e s Introduction A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ... B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4 C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ E) 4.Nf3 d6 F) 4.Nf3 c5 G) 4.Nf3 Bc5 H) 4.Nf3 d5 I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ... J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ... L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 M) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 N) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 Acknowledgments Urusov Gambit & Related Links Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives

The Urusov Gambit - Introduction

T hough my main audience for this website is developing players (who will learn much here about tactics, time, and material), I also hope that my analysis encourages correspondence and master players to take another look at the Urusov. Though it is considered an heirloom opening, opening, the Urusov is still very much alive and well. As my analysis shows, White achieves an enduring initiative for his pawn, offers Black many opportunities to go wrong, and reaches level and still uncharted territory against even the most accurate defense. With proper preparation, preparation, the Urusov poses few risks for the first player and is likely to surprise quite a few opponents. Especially if you like playing open games and enjoy the White side of the Two Knights Defense with d4 (which Black will transpose to over half the time), you are bound to feel very much at home in these sharp lines. A s with all gambits, the second player can accept or decline. Alekhine wrote of the Urusov that “after 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 5.Qxd4 White has a very strong attack. I avoid such material gains in the opening on principle, for they lead only to loss of time and delay of development.” development.” Alekhine’s advice is practical and sound, but many players have accepted the pawn and tried to endure the attack, using a timely timely thrust with ....d5 to seek equality. The most common common alternative is to return the material immediately with 4....d5, though even here White is not without attacking resources. resources. Also of interest are the lines beginning beginning with 4....c5, 4....Bb4+, and 4....d6 (transposing to the Philidor Defense), and the move 4....Nc6 transposing to The Two Knights Defense (which I treat partially in my website on the Perreux Variation -though players are urged to investigate the Modern Variation for even better results). P ublished analysis and practical games are always attributed, and where there is no attribution the analysis is my own. I have enjoyed sharing my discoveries and hope you will consider sharing yours as I continue to revise and update this article (a process that continues week by week, so it pays to check back here from time to time). I welcome questions, recent games, corrections, suggestions, suggestions, and links at [email protected] [email protected].. I have tried to include links li nks to some of the better opening resources available on the web. For a great collection of games, see Max Burkett's PGN files, files, also available at the Pitt Chess Archives (along with a larger l arger collection on the Bishop's Opening). For an excellent review of the games in the Pitt Archives see Tim Harding's articles: "The "The Eternal Appeal of the Urusov Gambit"" and "Is Gambit "Is the Urusov Gambit Sound?". Sound?". T he reader is advised that this article is in a constant state of revision, so it pays to check back here from time to time.

Line A >>>

Contact: Michael Goeller, Goeller , [email protected] Last modified: February 1, 2003 Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/index.html (2 of 2)28/09/06 07:08:59

The Urusov Gambit - Line A - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4


s

A ) 1 . e 4 e 5 2 . Bc Bc 4 N f 6 3 . d 4 . . . A 1 ) 3....d6 A 2 ) 3....Bd6 A 3 ) 3....c6

A 4 ) 3....d5 A 5 ) 3....Qe7 A 6 ) 3....Nc6

I n d e x o f L in in e s Introduction A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ... B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4 C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ E) 4.Nf3 d6 F) 4.Nf3 c5 G) 4.Nf3 Bc5 H) 4.Nf3 d5 I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ... J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ...

Position after 3.d4

L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 M) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6

W hite's thrust with 3.d4 forces Black to take some action. We will examine the standard choices of taking one of White's pawns (with 3....Nxe4 or 3....exd4) in the pages that follow. Here we consider mostly inferior Black alternatives, though 3....d5 and 3....Nc6 are both playable.

N) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 Acknowledgments Urusov Gambit & Related Links Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives

A 1 ) 3 . .. .. .d . d 6 ? 4 . d x e 5 d x e 5 (4....Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ or 5.Qd5 Be6 6.Qxb7 +-) 5 . Bx Bx f 7 + K x f 7 6 . Q x d 8 B b 4 + 7 . Qd Qd 2 B x d 2 + 8 . N x d 2 ± A 2 ) 3 . . .. .. B d 6 ? 4 . N f 3 ? ! (Better is 4.dxe5! Bxe5 5.f4 Nxe4 6.Qh5! +-) 4 . . .. .. N c 6 5 . d x e 5 B x e 5 6 . N x e 5 N x e 5 7 . B b 3 O - O 8 . f 4 N c 6 9 . N c 3 d 6 1 0 . OO - O += Loya--Wood, Flagstaff 1991. 1991. A 3 ) 3 . . .. .. c 6 4 . d x e 5 Q a 5 + (4....Nxe4 5.Qe2 += see B5 below) 5 . N c 3 N x e 4 (5....Qxe5 6.Nf3 B x f 7 + K x f 7 7 . Qf Qf 3 + N f 6 8 . ex e x f 6 Q e5 e 5 + 9 . N e4 e 4 B b 4 + 1 0 . Kf Kf 1 R e e8 8 11.fxg7+ Kxg7 +=) 6 . Bx 1 2 . Q g 4 + K h 8 1 3 . B g 5 ! Be B e 7 1 4 . N f 3 Qb Q b 5 + 1 5 . K g 1 d 5 1 6 . Qh Q h 5 B d 7 1 7 . N f 6 ! 1-0 Marshall-Forseberg, New York 1924 (17....Bxf6 18.Bxf6; 17....Bf5 18.Qe8). A 4 ) 3 . .. .. .d . d 5 ! ? (Hooper's Gambit) A 4 a ) 4 . d x e5 e5 A 4 a 1 ) 4 . . .. .. N x e 4 ? ! 5 . B x d 5 += Ng5 6.Bxg5 Qxg5 7.Nf3! Qh5 8.Nc3 Be7 9.h3 c6 10.Bb3 O-O 11.Qe2 Na6 12.Ne4 Nc5 13.Nxc5 Bxc5 14.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/A.html (1 of 3)28/09/06 07:09:11


O-O-O ± Tartakower--vo Tartakower--von n Scheve, Barmen 1905. 1905. A 4 a 2 ) 4 . .. .. .d .d x c 4 5 . Qx Qx d 8 + K x d 8 6 . e x f 6 g x f 6 is difficult to assess, in a way similar to the classic Berlin Defense to the Ruy Lopez where Black has the two Bishops in exchange for pawn weaknesses. The line should favor White, but examples are few and inconclusive: A 4 a 2 a ) 7 . Bf Bf 4 B b 4 + 8 . N c3 c3 B x c 3 + 9 . b x c 3 B d 7 1 0 . O O - O R e 8 1 1 . f 3 K c 8 1 2 . N e 2 b 6 += 13.Ng3 a5 14.Rd5 b5 15.Rh5 b4 16.Rxh7 Be6 17.h4 Nd7 18.h5 Rb8 19.h6 b3 20.cxb3 cxb3 21.axb3 Nc5 22.Ne2? Nxb3+ 23.Kc2 a4 24.Nc1 a3 25.Na2 Rd8 26.c4 Nd4+ 27.Kc3 Ne2+ 28. Kc2 Rb2# 0-1 Pitschka--Nuer, Berlin 1984. 1984. A 4 a 2 b ) 7 . N c3 c3 B d 6 8 . N g e 2 R g 8 9 . N g 3 B g 4 1 0 . f 3 B e 6 1 1 . Be B e 3 c 6 1 2 . OO- O - O Kc K c 7 1 3 . N c e2 e 2 N d 7 1 4 . Rd Rd 2 Ne5 15.R Rh hd1 Bb4 16.Nc3 b6 17 .Nh5 Be7 18.h3 Schaefer--Schulenburg, rg, Germany 1994. 1994. N g 6 1 9 . f 4 += Schaefer--Schulenbu A 4 b ) 4 . ex e x d 5 ! e x d 4 (4....e4!? 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bg5 +=) 5 . Q x d 4 B e 7 (5....c6 6.Nc3 b5 7.Bb3 b4 8.Ne4 [8.Nce2] 8....Nxd5 9.Bg5 +=) 6 . N c 3 N c 6 7 . B b 5 ? ! (7.Qd2! Ne5 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Qe2 +=/±) 7 . . .. . . OO- O ! 8 . Q d 1 N b 4 9 . B c 4 B f 5 1 0 . B b 3 R e 8 1 1 . N g e 2 c 6 1 2 . d x c 6 Qx Q x d 1 + 1 3 . K x d 1 R ad a d 8 + = 14.Bd2 Nxc6 15.h3 Bc5 16. Rf1 Be4 17.Nf4 g5 18.Nxe4 Nxe4 19.Nd3 Bb4 20.Be3 Nd4 21.Ba4 Re6 22.c3 Nf5 23.Kc2 Nxe3+ 24.fxe3 Bd6 25.Bb3 Re7 26.Rf5 Kg7 27.Raf1 f6 28.R1f3 a6 29. Bd5 Rf8 30.Bxe4 Rxe4 31.Rd5 Re6 32.Nc5 Bxc5 33.Rxc5 Rfe8 34.Rc7+ R8e7 35. Rxe7+ Rxe7 36.Kd3 Kg6 37.e4 Re5 38.g4 h6 39.Rf5 Re6 40.c4 Rb6 41.b3 Re6 42.Kd4 h5 43.Kd5 Rc6 44.c5 hxg4 45.hxg4 a5 46.a3 Ra6 47.e5 fxe5 48.Rxe5 Ra8 49.Re6+ Kf7 50.Rb6 Rd8+ 51.Ke5 Rd7 52.b4 a4 53.b5 Rd3 54.Rxb7+ Kg6 1-0 Regan--Kichinski, 1988. 1988. A 5 ) 3 . .. . . .Q .Q e7 e 7 4 . N f 3 d 6 5 . N c3 c3 c 6 6 . Bg Bg 5 g 6 7 . Q Qd d 2 B g 7 8 . OO- O - O b 5 9 . d x e 5 d x e 5 1 0 . N x b 5 ! O - O 1 1 . N c 3 += Broome--Barrios, Moscow 1994. 1994 . A 6 ) 3 . . .. .. N c 6 Lasker’s recommendation recommendation practically forces transposition to The Two Knights Defense after 4. Nf3. White's alternatives are not promising. A 6 a ) 4 . Bx B x f 7 + ? Kx Kx f 7 5 . d x e 5 N x e 5 6 . f 4 N c 6 7 . e5 e 5 d 5 ? ! (Black refuses to be outdone in the romantic disregard for material) 8 . e x f 6 Q x f 6 9 . N f 3 Bb Bb 4 + 1 0 . c 3 R e8 e 8 + 1 1 . K f 1 Bd B d 6 =+ 12.Ng5+ Kg6 13.Qd3+ Qf5 14.Qg3 Qg4 15.Qxg4 Bxg4 16.h3 Be2+ 17.Kf2 Bc5+ 18.Kg3 Ne7 19.Kh2 Nf5 20.g4 Ne3 21.Na3 Bd6 22.Kg3 h6 23.Nf3 Re4 24.Kf2 Bf3 25.Kf3 Bf4 26.Bxe3 Rxe3+! -+ 27.Kf2 Rae8 28.Rad1 Re2+ 29.Kf3 Bg5 30.Rd3 Bh4 31.Rf1 0-1 Thomas--Milner-Ba Thomas--Milner-Barry, rry, Hastings 1938. 1938. A6b) 4.d5?! N Ne e 7 (4....Na5!? 5.Bd3 c6 6.c4 b5!?) 5 . N c 3 (5.f4!? Leach; 5.d6?! Ng6! =+; 5.Bd3 Ng6 6.Be3 c6 7.c4 Bb4+ =+) 5 . . .. . . N g 6 6 . N g e 2 (6.Bg5 h6) 6 . . . . B c5 c 5 7 . O - O d 6 8 . B b 5 + B d 7 9 . B x d 7 + Q x d 7 1 0 . Q d 3 OO - O 1 1 . Bg Bg 5 N e 8 1 2 . N g 3 Qg 4 1 3 . B e 3 N f 4 =+ 14.Qd1 Qg5 15.Qf3 g6 16.Bxc5 dxc5 17.Rfe1 Nd6 18. Nge2 Nh5 19.Ng3 Nf4 20.Nge2 Rae8 21.Nxf4 exf4 22.b3 Re5 23.Re2 Rfe8 24. Rae1 b5 =+ but eventually 1-0 in Bannasch--Boege, Baden Baden 1988. 1988. A 6 c ) 4 . c 3 ! ? N x e 4 5 . Bd B d 5 (Harding) 5 . . .. . . N f 6 6 . B x c 6 d x c 6 7 . Q e 2 ! ? e 4 =+ A 6 d ) 4 . d x e5 e5 N x e 5 A 6 d 1 ) 5 . B e2 e 2 (Harding) 5 . . . . d 6 ? ! (5....d5! 6.f4 Ng6 7.e5 Ne4 =+)



6.Nc3 Be7 7.f4 Ng6 8 .Nf3 c6 9.O-O O-O 10 .Kh1 d5 1 1.e5 Ne8 += Kiss--Sepulveda, Sao Lourenco WYCF-U14g 1995. 1995. A 6 d 2 ) 5 . B b 3 B c5 c5 (=+ Lasker) 6 . N f 3 N x f 3 + 7 . Qx Q x f 3 O - O 8 .O .O - O d 6 9 . Bg B g 5 B d 4 1 0 . c 3 Be B e 5 1 1 . h 3 h 6 1 2 . B e 3 Kh Kh 7 1 3 . N d 2 g 5 1 4 . g 4 B e 6 1 5 . N c4 c4 N d 7 1 6 . R Ra a d 1 Q e 7 1 7 . R f e 1 B g 7 1 8 . B d 4 N e 5 =+ Hobson--Isaacs, US Open Baltimore 1948. 1948 . A 6 e ) 4 . Nf N f 3 ! transposes to The Two Knights Defense. Part of this site covers the Perreux Variation (4....exd4 5.Ng5). And for those interested in the Max Lange lines (4....exd4 5.O-O), Max Burkett has posted an excellent PGN zip file covering those. More material will eventually follow, including the Modern Variation (4....exd4 5.e5).

Line B >>>

Contact: Michael Goeller, Goeller , [email protected] Last modified: December 15 , 2002 Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved


The Urusov Gambit -- Line B -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe5


s

B ) 1 . e4 e 4 e 5 2 . Bc Bc 4 N f 6 3 . d 4 N x e 4 4 . d x e 5 B1 ) B2 ) B3 ) B4 )

4....Nxf2 4....Bc5 4....f5 4....Qe7

B 5 ) 4....c6 B 6 ) 4....Nc5 B 7 ) 4....Qh4

I n d e x o f L in in e s Introduction A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ... B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4 C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ E) 4.Nf3 d6 F) 4.Nf3 c5 G) 4.Nf3 Bc5 H) 4.Nf3 d5 I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ... J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ... L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5

B l a ck ck t o p l a y a f t e r 4 . d x e 5

M) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 N) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5

B lack captures the e-pawn rather than the d-pawn, and White captures Black's pawn at e5 to maintain material equality. This line is weaker than 3....exd4 because the Knight is vulnerable at e4 and White's pawn at e5 gives White more control of the center squares. White also has immediate threats, including 5.Qd5 (forking f7 and the Knight at e4) or 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Qd5+ (winning a pawn and misplacing Black's King). Black does have the move, though, and he has a number of choices -- including several methods of attempting a counter-attack, none of which is especially effective.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/B.html (1 of 5)28/09/06 07:09:21

Acknowledgments Urusov Gambit & Related Links Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives


B 1 ) 4 . . .. . . N x f 2 ? 5 . Q d 5 ! (5.Qf3 Qe7 6.Qxf2 Qxe5+ 7.Ne2 ± is also good) 5 . . .. . . Qh Qh 4 6 . Q x f 7 + (or 6.Nf3 Qe4+ 7.Kxf2 +-) 6 . . .K . K d 8 7 . N f 3 Q e 4 + (7....Nd3+ 8.Kd1! Nf7+ 9.Ke2 Qe4+ 10. Kxf2 +- or 8....Nxe5 9.Bg5+! Qxg5 10.Nxg5 Nxf7 11.Nxf7+ +-) 8 . K x f 2 B c5 c 5 + 9 . K f 1 N c6 c 6 +10.Nc3 Qxc2 11.Bg5+ Ne7 12.Nd4 Qxb2 13.Rd1 d5 14.exd6 Bxd6 15.Bxe7+ Bxe7 16.Ne6# 1-0 Kirby--Simpson, Mission City KS 1993 B 2 ) 4 . . .. . . B c5 c5 ? 5 . B x f 7 + (5.Qd5 Qh4 6.g3 Bxf2+ 7.Ke2 Qg4+ 8.Nf3 Qg6 9.Bd3 Nxg3+ 10. hxg3 Qxg3 11.Ng5 d6 12.Qxf7+ +- Harholm--Boe Harholm--Boeye, ye, 1990 1990)) 5 . . . . K f 8 (5....Kxf7 6.Qd5+ Kf8 7. Qxe4 ±) 6 . B d 5 ! (6.Qf3 ± Staunton) 6.....Qh4 (6....Nxf7? 7.Qf3+; 6....Ng5 7.Nf3! Ne6 8. Bxe6 +-; 6....Bxf7+ 7.Kf1 Bxg1 8.Qf3+ Nf6 9.exf6 Qxf6 10.Qxf6+ gxf6 11.Rxg1 +-) 7.Qf3+ Ke8 8.Bxe4 (8.Nh3 or 8.g3 +-) 8....Rf8 (8....Bxf2+ 9.Qxf2 Qxe4+ 10.Be3 Qxe5 11.Nc3 Rf8 12.Nf3 and 13.O-O-O +-) 9 . g 3 B x f 2 + (9....Rxf3 10.gxh4 Rxf2 11.Nc3 +-) 1 0 . K e 2 Q e7 e7 1 1 . B f 4 +B 3 ) 4 . . .. . . f 5 ? ! 5 . N f 3 d 6 (5....Bc5!? 6.O-O d6 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Qe2 +=) 6 . O - O d x e 5 7 . Qe Qe 2 ! ? (7.Qxd8+! Kxd8 8.Nxe5 Nd6 9.Rd1 Ke8 10.Bb3 Be7 11.Nc3 +=) 7 . . . B d 6 (7....Nc6 8.Rd1 Qf6! 9.Bd5 +=) 8 . N c 3 ! N x c 3 (8....Qe7?! 9.Nxe4 ± Goeller--Sherry, Westfield 1983) 1983) 9 . b x c 3 N c 6 (9....e4 10.Bg5! Qd7 [10....Be7? 11.Ne5! Bxg5 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Nxg6 +-] 11.Nd4 Nc6 12.Be6! [12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.f3 +=] 12....Bxh2+ 13.Kh1 Qd6 14.Nxf5! Qe5 15.Bxc8 Rxc8 16. Qg4 with the idea of 17.f4 +-) 1 0 . B g 5 and White’s attack more than compensates for the sacrificed pawn: for example, 10....Qd7 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.f4 h6!? 13.Bh4! (13.fxe5 Bc5+ 14. Be3 +=) 13....g5 14.fxe5 Bc5+ 15.Bf2 ±. B 4 ) 4 . . . . Q e 7 ? ! 5 . Q e 2 N c 5 (5....Qxe5? 6.f3 +-) B 4 a ) 6 . N c3 c 3 N e 6 7 . B e3 e 3 N c 6 8 . N f 3 (8.f4!?) 8 . . .. .. b 6 9 . OO- O - O B b 7 1 0 . N d 5 Q d 8 1 1 . B g 5 ! B e7 e 7 (on 11....Nxg5 Collins gives 12.Nxc7+ Qxc7 13.Nxg5 Qxe5? 14. Bxf7+ Kd8 15.Qg4 d6 16.Rhe1 Qf6 17.Re8+ Kc7 18.Ne6+ Kd7 19.Nc5 Kc7 20. Qd7# but more direct is 11....Nxg5 12.Nf6+! gxf6 13.exf6+ Ne6 14.Bxe6 +-) 1 2 . h 4 N x g 5 (12....h6!?) 1 3 . N x g 5 Bx B x g 5 + 1 4 . h x g 5 Qx Q x g 5 + 1 5 . f 4 Qd Qd 8 1 6 . Kelley--Kornhauser, r, US Q h 5 R h f 8 1 7 . Rh Rh e 1 Q c 8 1 8 . e 6 K d 8 1 9 . e x f 7 1-0 Kelley--Kornhause Correspondence 1954. 1954 . B 4 b ) 6 . N f 3 h 6 (6....Ne6 7.Nc3 likely transposes to B4a) 7 . N c3 c3 c 6 8 . B e 3 b 5 9 . B b 3 (better to surrender the dark-squared Bishop with 9.Bxc5! Qxc5 10.Bb3 +with the powerful threat of Nc3-e4-d6+ with a winning attack) 9 . . .. .. N b a 6 1 0 . 0 – 0 b 4 1 1 . N b 1 N c7 c 7 1 2 . N b d 2 N x b 3 1 3 . a x b 3 a 5 ? ! 1 4 . N c4 c4 B a 6 1 5 . Rx Rx a 5 +Qd8 16.Bb6 Bxc4 17 .Q Qx x c 4 R x a 5 1 8 . Bx B x a 5 Q b 8 1 9 . N d 4 Q b 7 2 0 . B x c7 c7 Q x c 7 2 1 . f 4 (better 21.Re1 with the idea of Nd4-b5-d6+) 2 1 . .. . . .Q .Q a 7 2 2 . K h 1 B c 5 2 3 . N f 5 0 – 0 2 4 . h 3 (better 24.Qc4-d3-g3 +-) 2 4 . .. . . .Q . Q b 6 ? ! 2 5 . Qd Qd 3 ! d 5 2 6 . e x d 6 ! (26.Qg3!? +-) 2 6 . .. .. .R . R d 8 2 7 . R e 1 B f 2 2 8 . R d 1 K h 7 2 9 . d 7 ! +- g 6 3 0 . Q c4 c4 g x f 5 ? ! 3 1 . Qx Qx f 7 + K h 8 3 2 . Rd R d 6 and Black cannot avoid mate in two. 1-0 Michael Dougherty(2318) Dougherty(2318) - Alex Lenderman(2217), National Chess Congress Philadelphia (5), 30.11.2003 30.11.2003 B 5 ) 4 . . .. . . c6 c6 5 . Q e 2 N c 5 B 5 a ) 6 . N c3 c 3 ? ! b 5 ! (6....Be7?! 7.Bf4 [This move also met with success in Cheremisin--Korchmar, Cheremisin--Korchmar, Saratov 1976, but 7.Be3! with the idea of exchanging the dark-squared Bishop for the Knight at c5, rather than allowing Black to exchange the light-squared Bishop with b5 and Nxb3, seems objectively better] 7....Ne6 8.Bg3 c5 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.O-O-O Qa5 11.Nb5!? O-O 12.Nd6 Bxd6 13.exd6 b5 14.Bd5 += Woeber--Grabher, Correspondence 1995) 1995 ) 7 . B b 3 a 5 ! 8 . a 3 B a 6 ! ? 9 . Qf Qf 3 N x b 3 1 0 . c cx x b 3 Q e7 e 7 1 1 . Bf B f 4 d 5 1 2 . N g e 2 g 6 ? ! (better 12...Nd7! 13.0–0 [13.Nd4? Nxe5! -+; 13.Qe3 f6!? 14.e6?! Nc5 15.Nd4 b4! 16.axb4 Nd3+ 17.Kf1 Rf e 1 0 – 0 ? 1 5 . N d 4 ! ± B b 7 1 6 . Qg Qg 3 b 4 Qxb4 -+] 13...b4 =+) 1 3 . 0 – 0 B g 7 1 4 . Rf 1 7 . N a 4 R e 8 1 8 . Re Re 3 ! ? c 5 (18...h6 19.Rae1 g5? 20.e6!-->) 1 9 . B g 5 c x d 4 (19... Bxe5 20.Nf5-->) 2 0 . Bx B x e 7 d x e 3 2 1 . Bd Bd 6 e x f 2 + 2 2 . Qx Qx f 2 N d 7 2 3 . N b 6 N x b 6



2 4 . Q x b 6 B a 6 2 5 . a x b 4 R e 6 2 6 . Rx R x a 5 B x e 5 2 7 . Rx Rx a 6 R x a 6 2 8 . Q Qb b8+ Kg7 29. B x e 5 + f 6 3 0 . Bd B d 4 1 – 0 Tamas-Kovacs, Tamas-Kovacs, Hungary 1995. B 5 b ) 6 . a3 a 3 (Or 6.a4!? d5 7.exd6+ Ne6 8.Nf3 Bxd6 9.0–0 0–0 10.Rd1 +=) 6 . . . d 5 7 . e x d 6 + N e 6 8 .N . N f 3 (8.Nc3 Bxd6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0–0 Qe7=) 8 . . .B .B x d 6 9 . N g 5 Q e 7 1 0 . N x e 6 B x e 6 1 1 . B x e 6 f x e 6 1 2 . N d 2 0 – 0 1 3 . N e 4 B e 5 1 4 . Bg Bg 5 Q f 7 1 5 . 0 – 0 – 0 + = N d 7 1 6 . Kb K b 1 h 6 1 7 . B h 4 B c7 c 7 1 8 . N d 6 ! B x d 6 1 9 . Rx Rx d 6 R a e 8 2 0 . R e 1 e 5 2 1 . Qg Qg 4 ! Q f 4 2 2 . Re Re 4 (22.Qxf4!? Rxf4 23.Bg3 Rf7 24.f3 +=) 2 2 . .. . . Qx Qx g 4 2 3 . R x g 4 h 5 2 4 . R a 4 ?! ?! (24.Re4! Nf6 25.Rb4 Re7 26.f3 +=) 2 4 . . . N b 6 ! 2 5 . R e4 e 4 (25.Rxa7?? Nc8–+) 2 5 . . ..R Rf4! 26.f3 Rxe4 27.fxe4 Kf7 28.b3 R e 6 2 9 . Rd Rd 2 (29.Rd8!? Re8 [29...Rg6 30.Bg3 unclear] 30.Rxe8 Kxe8 31.Bf2 unclear. Now Black slowly gets the better of the ending and might have won.) 2 9 . . ..R Rg6 30.h3 Ke6 31.c4 Nd7 32.b4 Nf6 33.R Re e 2 R h 6 3 4 . K c2 c2 R h 8 3 5 . Re Re 3 R g 8 3 6 . Bg B g 5 R d 8 3 7 . Rd Rd 3 R g 8 3 8 . Bx B x f 6 g x f 6 3 9 . g 3 f 5 4 0 . e x f 5 + K x f 5 4 1 . a4 a4 R g 7 4 2 . b 5 e 4 4 3 . Rd Rd 8 R x g 3 4 4 . Rd Rd 7 c x b 5 4 5 . a x b 5 b 6 4 6 . Rx Rx a 7 K e 5 4 7 . Rb Rb 7 R g 6 4 8 . K c3 c3 R e 6 4 9 . Rf Rf 7 h 4 5 0 . K d 2 K d 4 5 1 . Rh Rh 7 K x c 4 5 2 . Rx Rx h 4 K x b 5 5 3 . R h 8 K b 4 5 4 . h 4 e 3 + 5 5 . K e 2 b 5 5 6 . h 5 K b 3 5 7 . Rg Rg 8 R e 5 5 8 . h 6 R h 5 5 9 . Rh Rh 8 R h 3 6 0 . h 7 b 4 6 1 . K d 3 R h 6 6 2 . K x e 3 R e6 e 6 + 6 3 . K f 4 R e7 e 7 6 4 . Kg K g 5 R b 7 ½–½ Fedorov- Mamedyarov, Aeroflot Open, Moscow 2004. See PGN file. file. B 5 d ) 6 . Nf N f 3 ! (White's idea is to rapidly mobilize and preserve the option of attacking with c4 if Black prematurely advances with b5 and a5 -- rather than passively trying to retreat the Bishop via a3 and Ba2) 6 . . . . b 5 (6...d5?! 7.exd6+ Ne6 8.Ng5 Qxd6 [8...Bxd6 9.Nxe6 Bxe6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.Qxe6+ Qe7 12.Qxe7+ ±] 9.0–0 h6 10.Rd1 Qe7 11.Ne4 Qc7 12.f4 ± ) 7 . B b 3 a 5 (7...Nxb3?! 8.axb3 d5 9.exd6+ Be6 10.Ng5; 7...d5 8.exd6+ Be6 9.Ng5 ± ) 8 . c 4 ! with the better game for White. See PGN file. file. B 6 ) 4 . . .. .. N c 5 B 6 a ) 5 . N f 3 (White goes for rapid mobilization, but this is not the strongest plan. The immediate 5.Bf4 might also be met also with 5....d6! 6.exd6 Bxd6 7. Bxd6 cxd6 and, though the pawn at d6 is potentially weak, Black has lots of activity.) 5 . . . . B e 7 ? ! (Better 5....d6! 6.O-O Be6 7.Bxe6 Nxe6 8.exd6 Bxd6 9.Re1 O-O = Spetzke--Wo Spetzke--Wolff, lff, Eisenberg 1993) 1993) 6 . B f 4 N c 6 7 . N c 3 N e 6 8 . Bg Bg 3 O - O 9 . Q e 2 f 5 (9....d6 10.O-O-O) 1 0 . OO - O - O Q e8 e8 1 1 . N d 5 K h 8 1 2 . N f 4 a 6 1 3 . h 4 N a 5 1 4 . B x e 6 ! d x e 6 1 5 . N g 5 B c5 c5 1 6 . Rd Rd 8 Q x d 8 1 7 . Q Qh h 5 h 6 1 8 . Qg Qg 6 ! h x g 5 1 9 . h x g 5 + K g 8 2 0 .Q . Q h 5 (20.Rh8+! Kxh8 21.Qh5+ Kg8 22.g6 +-) 2 0 . . . . N c 4 2 1 . g 6 Nejstadt--Gipslis, slis, USSR 1955 1955.. Q d 2 + 2 2 . Kb K b 1 N a 3 + 2 3 . b x a 3 1-0 Nejstadt--Gip B 6 b ) 5 . f 4 d 6 (A necessary move to avoid the cramping that follows 5....Ne6 6. Nf3 h6? 7.f5 Ng5 8.O-O Nf3+ 9.Qf3 c6 10.f6 gxf6 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Qh5+ Kg8 13.Qg6+ Bg7 14.exf6 Qf8 15.f7+ 1-0 Pfleger--Herzo Pfleger--Herzog, g, Berlin 1960 or 5....g6? 6. Nf3 c6 7.Be3 d5 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.Nc3 Bf5 10.Qxd6 Bxd6 11.0-0-0 Be7 12.Rhe1 Ne6 13.Ne5 Bf6 14.g4 Bxe5 15.gxf5 Bxc3 16.fxe6 Bf6 17.exf7+ Kf8 18.Bc5+ Kg7 19.f5 Na6 20.Bxa6 bxa6 21.Rd7 Kh6 22.fxg6 Bg7 23.gxh7 Rxh7 24.f8Q Bxf8 25.Bxf8+ Rxf8 26.Re6+ 1-0 Lasker-Amateurs Lasker-Amateurs,, New Orleans Exhibition f 3 B e 6 + = 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.O-O d5 9.b4 Nca6 10.Nd4 Bxb4 11.Nxe6 1893)) 6 . N f3 1893 Qd7 12.f5 g6 13.Qg4 Bc5+ 14.Nxc5 Nxc5 15.e6 1-0 Strijbos--Jochemsen, Njimegen 1993. 1993. B 6 c ) 5 . Be B e 3 ! N e 6 (To avoid an eventual Bxc5. Not 5....d6? 6.Bxc5! dxc5 7.Bxf7 +! but perhaps 5....Nc6 6.Nf3 d6!? 7.Bxc5 dxc5 8.Qxd8+ Nxd8 9.Nc3 though White has a clear edge despite the reduced forces.) 6 . f 4 ! B b 4 + 7 . c3 c3 B a 5 8 . N f 3 B b 6 9 . Qe Qe 2 O - O 1 0 . f 5 ! ± Nc5 11.Bg5 Qe8 12.f6 Ne6 13.fxg7 Nxg7 14.Nbd2 d5 15.Bxd5 c6 16.Ne4 Nd7 17.Bc4 Bd8 1-0 Flierl--Pensold, Germany 1992. 1992. B 7 ) 4 . . .. . . Qh Qh 4 ! ? Though this move seems to lay claim to the initiative, it is much better for



White in the end. Download PGN File. File. B 7 a ) 5 . Q e 2 ?! ? ! Estrin B 7 a 1 ) 5 . .. . . .B .B c5 c 5 ? ! 6 . g 3 ! B x f 2 + 7 . Qx Qx f 2 ! ? (7.Kf1! ±) 7 . . .. .. N x f 2 8 . g x h 4 N x h 1 9 . Kf K f 1 ! ± Nc6 10.Bf4 Rf8 11.Kg2 Nb4 12.Na3 b6 13.Nf3 Bb7 14.Rh1 Nd5 15.Bc1 O-O-O 16.Rd1 Ne7 17.Kg3 ± Levi--Guy, Adelaide Open 1990. 1990. This game is worth some study, since the resulting ending of two minor pieces versus a Rook is fairly common in the B-lines.

In Levi-Guy Levi-Guy,, Black won the exchange with 8....Nxh1 but his Knight was trapped on the h1 square. White could win it with 9.Bd5?! but that would allow Black to put pressure on the pawn at e5 with 9....O-O! 10. Bxh1 Re8!, when the pin on the isolated e-pawn would make it especially difficult to defend, i.e.: 11. Bf4 d6 12.Nf3 dxe5 and White cannot recapture due to 13....f6 winning a piece. Therefore, Levi chose the best way to get the Knight with 9.Kf1! gaining two pieces for a Rook. B 7 a 2 ) 5 . .. . . .N .N x f 2 ! 6 . g 3 ! Q e 4 ! 7 . N c 3 B b 4 ! (7....Qxh1? 8.Qxf2 c6 9. Qxf7+ Kd8 10.Bg5+ Kc7 11.O-O-O +-; 7....Qxe2+!? 8.Kxe2 Nxh1 9. Nd5 b5! =+) 8 . K x f 2 Q x h 1 (8....Bc5+ 9.Be3 Bxe3+ 10.Qxe3 Qxc4!? 11.Nf3 O-O 12.Rad1 with compensation for the pawn) 9 . N f 3 B c 5 + 1 0 . B e 3 Bx B x e 3 + 1 1 . Qx Q x e 3 Q x a 1 1 2 . N d 5 Q x b 2 ! (not 12....O-O? 13. Nf6+ Kh8 14.Qe4 g6 15.Qh4 +- nor 12....Na6? 13.Qg5!! +-) 1 3 . N x c 7 + K d 8 1 4 . N x a8 a 8 Q x c 2 + -+ and White does not have adequate compensation for the exchange (Download ( Download PGN File). File). B 7 b ) 5 . B e3 e 3 ! ? N x f 2 ? ! (5....Nd6! +=) 6 . Bx B x f 7 + K x f 7 7 . Qf Qf 3 + K e8 e 8 8 . B x f 2 Qb Qb 4 (Download PGN File). File). + 9 . N c3 c 3 Q x b 2 1 0 . Rb Rb 1 Q x c 2 1 1 . N g e 2 N c6 c6 1 2 . O O-- O ± (Download B7c) 5 .Q Qff 3 ! N g 5 (5....Nxf2? 6.Qxf7+ Kd8 7.Nf3! Nd3+ 8.Kd1 Nf2+ 9.Ke2 Qe4+ 10.Kf2 Bc5+ 11.Kf1 +-) B 7 c 1 ) 6 . Q e 2 ?! ? ! N c 6 7 . g 3 Q e 4 8 . Qx Q x e 4 N x e 4 9 . B d 5 N c 5 1 0 . Bx Bx c 6 =+ Dorfman--Zilberstein, USSR d x c 6 1 1 . N e 2 B g 4 1 2 . N b c3 c3 O - O - O 1974. B 7 c 2 ) 6 . Q d 5 ! ? c6 c 6 (6....Qe4+ 7.Qxe4 Nxe4 8.f3 Nc5 9.Nc3 +=) 7 . B x g 5 c x d 5 8 . Bx B x h 4 d x c 4 9 . N c3 c3 + = B 7 c 3 ) 6 . Bx B x g 5 Q x c4 c 4 (6....Qxg5 7.Bxf7+ Kd8 8.Nc3 ±) 7 . N c 3 B b 4 (7....d6! 8.O-O-O Nc6 9.exd6 Bxd6 =) 8 . N g e 2 O - O 9 . O - O ? ! (Better 9.Bf4 to discourage ....d6 or 9.O-O-O followed by Qg3 and f4 to build a kingside attack +=) 9 . . . . d 6 = 10.Be7 Re8 11.Nd5 Bg4 12. Qg3 Qxd5 13.Qxg4 Qxe5 14.Qxb4 Nc6 15.Qxb7 Nxe7 16.Ng3 Qc5 1/2-1/2 Braun--Tresch, Germany 1991. 1991. B7c4) 6 .Q Qff 4 ! Q x f 4 7 . B x f 4 N e 6 8 . Bg B g 3 (+= Larsen) 8 . . . . N c 6 9 .



N f 3 B c 5 1 0 . N c3 c3 N e d 4 1 1 . N d 5 ! N x f 3 + 1 2 . g x f 3 B b 6 1 3 . OO- O - O += O - O 1 4 . R h g 1 K h 8 1 5 . f 4 (15.b4! Re8 16.a4! a5 17.b5 ± Nxe5?! 18.Rde1 d6 19.f4 +-) 1 5 . . . . N a 5 16.Nxb6 axb6 17.Bd5 f6 18. exf6 Rxf6 19.Rde1 Rf8 20.f5 d6 21.Re7 c6 22.Bxd6 Bxf5 23.Rgxg7 cxd5 24.Be5 Rfe8 25.Rxh7+ Kg8 26.Reg7+ Kf8 27.Rh8+ 1-0 BeringChristensen, Copenhagen 2002. 2002 . (Download (Download PGN File). File).

Line C >>>

Contact: Michael Goeller, Goeller , [email protected] Last modified: March 1, 2004 Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved


The Urusov Gambit - Line C - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3


s

C) 1 . e 4 e 5 2 . B c4 c4 N f 6 3 . d 4 e x d 4 4 . N f 3 C1 ) 4....h6

C2 ) 4....Be7


Position after 4.Nf3

B lack has a number of ways of responding in the main Urusov Gambit position. White threatens to advance with e5, forcing the Knight to e4, where it is vulnerable to attack. Generally the Knight at e4 will retreat to c5. But Black can also prepare to retreat the Knight to g5 by playing either 4....h6 or 4....Be7. Neither idea is especially good.

L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 M) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 N) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 Acknowledgments Urusov Gambit & Related Links Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives

C1 ) 4 . . . . h 6 5 . e 5 N h 7 (5....Ne5 6.Qxd4 Ng5 7.Bxg5! hxg5 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Qd5! Qe7 10.Qe4! ± with the strong threat of Nd5) 6 . N x d 4 ? ! (White probably does better to discourage ....d5 with 6.Qxd4! Nc6 7.Qe4 Ng5 8.Bxg5 hxg5 9.Nc3 ± or to strive for rapid development with 6. . . d 5 ! 7 . B b 3 (7.Bd3 or 7.exd6 O-O d5 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Re1+ Be7 9.Qxd4 O-O 10.Bf4 +=) 6 . . .. c5 8 . N c 3 c 6 9 . O - O N g 5 1 0 . B e 3 O - O ? (10....Qe7 11.f4 Ne6 12.f5! are also sensible) 7 . . . . B c5 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 +=; 10....Nd7 10.e6!? Nxe6 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Qh5+ with an attack) 1 1 . N x c 6 ! Brudnova--Predovic, vic, European Junior Championship at Rimavska Sobota b x c 6 1 2 . B x c5 c 5 ± Brudnova--Predo 1992.. 1992 C2 ) 4 . . . . Be Be 7 5 . e 5 N e 4 6 . Q Qx xd4 C2 a ) 6 . . . . N c 5 7 . N c 3 (7.Qg4!? g6 8.Qf4! Ne6 9.Qe4 +=) 7....O-O (7....Nc6 8. Qd5! Ne6 9.Be3 b6 10.0-0-0 Bb7 11.Qd2 Na5 12.Bd3 d5 13.exd6 Bxd6 14.Ne4 Be7 15.Qc3 0-0 16.h4 Qe8 17.Neg5 Bf6 18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.Qb4 c5 20.Qg4 Qb5 21.b3 g6 22.Bxg6 fxg6 23.h5 Nxg5 24.hxg6+ Kg8 25.Nxg5 Qe8 26.Nf7 Bc8 27. Rh7!! Bg7 28.Bh6! Rxf7 29.gxf7+ Qxf7 30.Rxg7+ Kh8 31.Rd8+ 1-0 Johnson-Moreau, Portland, Maine 1989) 1989) 8 . B e 3 d 6 (8....Nc6 9.Qf4 Ne6 10.Qg3 +=) 9 . O -

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/C.html (1 of 2)28/09/06 07:09:31

The Urusov Gambit - Line C - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3

Heller--Jacobse, bse, LandesO - O Q e 8 ?! ? ! 1 0 . N d 5 ! B d 8 1 1 . e x d 6 c x d 6 1 2 . Q f 4 += Heller--Jaco Einzelmeister 1990. 1990. C2 b ) 6 . . .. .. N g 5 7 . N x g 5 ! ? (A better gain of time follows 7.Bxg5! Bxg5 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Qe4 Bh6!? 10.g4! ± or 9....Be7 10.O-O-O O-O 11.h4 ±. White should not exchange so many pieces.) 7 . . .. .. B x g 5 8 . B x g 5 (8.f4! Bh4+ 9.g3 Be7 10.Be3 +=) 8 . . .. . . Qx Qx g 5 9 . O - O N c 6 1 0 . Qe Qe 4 Q g 6 (10....Qxe5? 11.Qxe5 Nxe5 12.Re1 and f4 +-; 10....O-O 11.f4 Qh5 12.Bd5!? or 12.Nc3 +=) 1 1 . Qx Q x g 6 h x g 6 1 2 . N c3 c3 O - O (12....Kd8 13.f4 f6 14.Rfe1 +=) 1 3 . Rf Rf e 1 + = N d 4 ? ?!! 1 4 . N d 5 ! d 6 (14....Nxc2 15. Re4! Re8 16.Rc1 wins the Knight while 15....Nxa8? 16.Ne7+ Kh7 17.Rh4#) 1 5 . R e4 e 4 N f 5 1 6 . N x c 7 ± Rb8 17.g4 Nh4 18.exd6 b5 19.Bd5 Rb6 20.Rd1 Kh8 21. Bxf7 Nf3+ 22.Kg2 Bb7 23.Re8 Rxe8 24.Nxe8 Bc6 25.Nc7 Ne5+ 26.Bd5 Bd7 27. Be6 Bc6+ 28.Kg3 Rb8 29.f4 1-0 Karpatchev--Grig Karpatchev--Grigoriov, oriov, Capelle la Grande 1993. 1993.

Line D >>>

Contact: Michael Goeller, Goeller , [email protected] Last modified: April 25, 2002 Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/C.html (2 of 2)28/09/06 07:09:31

The Urusov Gambit - Line D - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3


s

D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c c3 3 dxc3 D 1 ) 6.Bxf7+?

D 2 ) 6.bxc3

I n d e x o f L in in e s D 3 ) 6.O-O

Introduction A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ... B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4 C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ E) 4.Nf3 d6 F) 4.Nf3 c5 G) 4.Nf3 Bc5 H) 4.Nf3 d5 I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ... J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ...

Position after 5.c3 dxc3

L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5

O ne of the most underestimated defensive tries for Black is the bishop check, 4 . . . . B b 4 + , a move commonly played by tyros who cannot resist a check but one also likely to tempt master players who recognize its potential for transposing to favorable variations of line H. White's best appears to be 5 . c 3 d x c 3 and now either 6 . b x c 3 (D2 D2)) or the speculative 6 . O - O ! ? (D3 D3). ).

M) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 N) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 Acknowledgments Urusov Gambit & Related Links Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives

advantage: B lack might also try 5.c3 d5!? when White has several ways of seeking an advantage: A) 6.exd5 Bd6? (much better is 6....Qe7+! +=/= transposing to line H which is only slightly better for White) 7.Qxd4 O-O 8.O-O Nbd7 9.Bg5 ± in the game Pfleger--Benitez,, Lugano 1968. Pfleger--Benitez 1968. B) 6.Qa4+ Qd7! (6....Nbd7 7.e5! dxc4 8.exf6 +=) 7.Qxb4 dxc4 8.O-O! Nc6 9. Qxc4 Qe6 10.Qa4 +=. C) 6.Bxd5! (This move wins a pawn) 6....Nxd5 7.exd5 Qe7+!? (7...dxc3? 8.Qa4 + +- but best may be to surrender the pawn immediately with 7....Be7 8.Qxd4 O-O +=) 8.Kd2! 0–0!? (Black must lose material, and this is the best attempt at a compensating attack) 9.cxb4 Qxb4+ 10.Ke2! Qb5+ 11.Qd3 Re8+ 12.Kd2 Qxd5 13.Qxd4 ± and Black does not have sufficient compensation for the piece. The lines below follow 1 . e 4 e 5 2 . Bc Bc 4 N f 6 3 . d 4 e x d 4 4 . N f 3 B b 4 + 5 . c 3 d x c 3 :

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/D.html (1 of 9)28/09/06 07:09:41


D 1 ) 6 . B x f 7 + ? K x f 7 7 . Qb Q b 3 + d 5 8 . Qx Q x b 4 N c 6 (8...Qe7) 9 .N . N g 5 + K g 6 10.Qxc3 h6 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Qd3+ Bf5 13.Ne4 Ndb4 14.Qg3+ Kh7 0-1 Angskog--Barkhagen, Gausdal 1994. 1994. D 2 ) 6 . b x c3 c3 D 2 a ) 6 . . .. .. B a 5 ?! ?! 7 . B a3 a 3 ! (7.e5 Qe7 8.Ba3 d6 9.O-O seems more forcing, but Black might try instead 7....d5! with unclear play) 7 . . . . d 6 8 . O - O (8.e5! Ne4 9. Qa4+! c6 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qxe4 d5 12.Qf4+ Kg8 13.O-O +=) 8 . . . . OO- O 9 . e 5 N e 4 1 0 . Qc Qc 2 N c 5 1 1 . N b d 2 B e 6 1 2 . Ra Ra d 1 += Rheinwalt--Grube, Havenstein GER 1991. 1991. D 2 b ) 6 . . .. . . Be B e 7 ? ! 7 . e 5 N g 4 8 . h 3 N h 6 9 . Bx B x h 6 g x h 6 1 0 . Qd Q d 5 (1-0 Pfleger-Brossington, Nice 1974) 1974) 1 0 . . . . R f 8 (10....O-O? 11.Qe4 and Bd3 +-) 1 1 . N d 4 ! ? (Better 11.Qe4! +=) 1 1 . . . . c 6 (11....d6 12.e6! ±) 1 2 . N f 5 d 6 (12....Qb6 13.Qd3 Qc5 14.Qe2 ±) 1 3 . N g 7 + ? ! (13.Nxd6+ Bxd6 14.Qxd6 Qxd6 15.exd6 Kd7 16.Nd2 +=) 1 3 . . .... Kd K d 7 1 4 . Qd Qd 3 d 5 = + 1 5 . OO - O Kc K c 7 1 6 . B b 3 Rg Rg 8 1 7 . N h 5 Q f 8 1 8 . f 4 Yepez--Paidoussis, ussis, Leipzig 1960 1960.. N a 6 1 9 . N d 2 N c 5 2 0 . Qf Q f 3 B f 5 2 1 . K h 2 1/2-1/2 Yepez--Paido D 2 c ) 6 . . . . B c 5 (This move is tougher than it at first appears and may actually be Black's best) 7 . e 5 (7.O-O!? Nxe4! 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qd5+ Kf8 10.Qxe4 d5! 11.Qf4 + Kg8 12.c4!? is unclear) 7 . . . . d 5 ! (7....Ne4? 8.Qd5! Bxf7+ 9.Kf1 O-O 10.Qxe4 Bc5 11.Bh6! +- Jan Timper; 7....Ng4?! 8.Bxf7+! +=; 7....Qe7?! 8.Be3!? [8.O-O! ±] 8....Ne4 9.Qd3 Bxe3 10.Qxe3 Nc5 11.O-O O-O 12.Rd1 Nc6 13.Bd5 += COMP Belle--COMP Lachex, Dallas 1986) 1986) 8 . e x f 6 d x c 4 D2c1) 9 .Q Qa a 4 + ? ! N c 6 ! 1 0 . Qx Qx c 4 B f 8 1 1 . Qe Qe 2 + B e 6 1 2 . f x g 7 B x g 7 1 3 . N g 5 =+. D 2 c 2 ) 9 . Q e2 e2 + B e 6 1 0 . f x g 7 R g 8 D 2 c 2 a ) 1 1 . B g 5 ? ! Qd Qd 5 ? ! (11....Qd3! 12.Qxd3 cxd3 13. Nbd2 Be7! =+) 1 2 . O - O N d 7 1 3 . R Rd d 1 Qf 5 1 4 . N b d 2 R x g 7 1 5 . N e 4 B e 7 (15....Bb6 16.Rxd7! Kxd7 17.Rd1+ Ke8 18.Rd5! +=; 15....h6!?) 1 6 . N h 4 ? ! (16.Bxe7! Kxe7 17.Ng3 followed by Nd4 ±) 1 6 . . . . Q g 4 (16....Qa5! unclear) 1 7 . f 3 Q h 5 1 8 . B x e 7 Kx Kx e 7 1 9 . R x d 7 + ! K f 8 ± 20.Rxc7 Qxh4 21.Qd2 Rd8 22.Qe3 Rg6 23.Qc5+ Kg8 24. Rxb7 Rd5? 25.Rb8+ Rd8 26.Rab1 f5 27.Nd6 f4 28.Qc7 Rxg2+ 29.Kxg2 Bh3+ 30.Kh1 Qf2 31.Rxd8# 1-0 Nielsen--Holm-Jensen, Nielsen--Holm-J ensen, Gladsaxe 1993 D 2 c 2 b ) 1 1 . N g 5 Qd Q d 5 (11...Qd3!? 12.Nxe6 Qxe2+ 13. Kxe2 fxe6 14.Bh6 Be7 15.Nd2 Bf6 16.Rab1 b6 17.Rhc1 Bxg7 18.Bxg7 Rxg7 19.g3 +=) 1 2 . N x e 6 f x e 6 (Perhaps better 12....Qxe6 13.Qxe6+ fxe6 14.Bh6 Be7 15.O-O Bf6 16.Na3 unclear) 1 3 . B h 6 N c 6 (13...Nd7 14.Nd2 Ne5 transposes) 1 4 . N d 2 (14.0–0!? 0–0–0 15.Nd2 Ne5 appears to transpose to the main line) 1 4 . . . N e 5 1 5 . 0 – 0 0 – 0 – 0 (Perhaps better is 15...Nd3!? 16.Nxc4!? [16.Qg4 Ne5 17.Qh4 Be7 18.Qh3 is unclear] 16...Qxc4 17.Qh5+ Ke7 18.Rad1 Bd6 19.Bg5+ Kd7 20.Qf7+ Kc6 21.Qf3+ Qd5 22.Rxd3 Qxf3 23.Rxf3 Rxg7 24.h4 =) 1 6 . R a e 1 ! (16.Ne4?! Be7 =+; 16.Rfe1? Nd3 17.Qxe6+ Qxe6 18.Rxe6 Nxf2 19.Kf1 Ng4 20.Ne4 Be3 -+) 1 6 . . . N f 7 (16...Bd6 17.Ne4 Be7 18.Ng3 +=; 16...Nd3 17. Qxe6+ Qxe6 18.Rxe6 Kd7 19.Rf6 ±) 1 7 . Qx Qx e 6 + Q x e 6 18.R Rx x e 6 N x h 6 (18...Rd6 19.Rxd6 Bxd6 20.Be3 +=) 1 9 .



N e 4 ! B b 6 ! (19...Bxf2+?! 20.Rxf2 Rd1+ [20...Ng4?! 21. Re7! Nxf2 22.Kxf2 Rd5 23.g4±]21.Rf1 Rxf1+ 22.Kxf1 Nf5 [22...Nf7 23.Nc5!±] 23.Rf6 Nxg7 24.Rf7 Ne6 25. Rxh7² Rf8+ 26.Kg1 Nf4 27.g4 += and White's two connected passed passed pawns are difficult for Black to match, though Black can gain some interesting counterplay with b5-b4.) 2 0 . R Rx x h 6 Rx g 7 2 1 . R Re e 1 R e 7 2 2 . Kf Kf 1 Rd 3 += with complex play, in which White has better chances of mobilizing his pawn majority. D 2 c3 c 3 ) 9 . Qx Qx d 8 + K x d 8 1 0 . f x g 7 R e8 e8 + D 2 c 3 a ) 1 1 . Kd K d 1 R g 8 ! (11....Bxf2? 12.Bg5+ Kd7 13. Nbd2 f5 14.Rf1 ±) 1 2 . B h 6 a 5 ! 1 3 . N e 5 R a 6 1 4 . R e 1 B e 6 ! 1 5 . N d 2 B d 5 =+ D 2 c 3 b ) 1 1 . B e 3 ! ? B x e 3 1 2 . f x e 3 R g 8 (12....Rxe3+! 13. Kf2 Re8 14.Re1 Rg8 15.Na3 unclear/=) 1 3 . N b d 2 R x g 7 1 4 . O - O = Reyes Najera--Pergericht, Novi Sad 1990 D 2 c 4 ) 9 . f x g 7 ! ? Qx Qx d 1 + (9....Qe7+?! 10.Kf1! Rg8 11.Bg5 +=) 1 0 . K x d 1 R g 8 1 1 . B h 6 might give White a slightly better version of lines above. D 2 d ) 6 . .. . . .d .d 5 ! This move may represent an improvement over the H lines below, since Black does not play Qe7+ here to defend the Bishop at b4 and therefore can avoid the annoying White pin by Bg5. Fortunately, it appears that White can show that Black's loose Bishop at b4 is a disadvantage in the tactics following 7.Qa4+! (see D2d3 below). D 2 d 1 ) 7 . ex ex d 5 ? ! Unfortunately White can only gain equality here if Black plays carefully. D 2 d 1 a ) 7 . .. . . .Q . Q e 7 + transposes to lines in H below which are slightly better for White (+=) D 2 d 1 b ) 7 . . .. .. B c5 c5 8 . O - O O - O 9 . B g 5 B g 4 1 0 . N b d 2 h 6 (Black tries to break the pin. This is better than 10.... Be7?! 11.Qb3 b6 12.Ne5 Bh5 13.Ndf3 Bxf3 14.Nxf3 Nbd7 15.Rfe1 h6 16.Nd4 Nc5 17.Qc2 Re8 18.Bh4 g5 19. Nc6 Qd7 20.Ne5 Qd8 21.d6 cxd6 22.Qg6+ 1-0 Irwin-Bootsma, Hengelo 1992) 1992 ) 1 1 . B x f 6 Q x f 6 1 2 . N e 4 Q e 7 13.R Re e 1 N d 7 1 4 . Qd Q d 3 R f e 8 1 5 . N eg eg 5 h x g 5 1 6 . R Rx xe7 R x e 7 1 7 . N x g 5 ± Nf6 18.d6 cxd6 19.h3 Be6 20.Bxe6 fxe6 21.Re1 e5 22.Qc4+ Kh8 23.Nf7+ Kh7 24.Qh4+ Kg6 25.Nh8+ Rxh8 26.Qxh8 1-0 Fritsch--Roszner, Correspondence 1984. 1984 . D 2 d 1 c ) 7 . . . .B .B e 7 ! (Preventing the pin by Bg5, Black puts pressure on the pawn at d5. Notice the many advantages this line has for Black over the positions arising in line H below, where Black's Queen Queen is slightly misplaced on e7.) 8 . B b 3 (The line 8.Bg5? O-O 9.O-O Nxd5! dramatically points up the fact that the Knight at . . c6 c 6 9 . c 4 B b 4 + 1 0 . Bd Bd 2 f6 can no longer be pinned) 8 . . .. Q e 7 + 1 1 . K f 1 ? ! (White must run for the endgame with



11.Qe2! Bxd2+ 12.Nfxd2 Qxe2+ 13.Kxe2 cxd5 14.cxd5 b6 15.Re1 O-O 16.Nc3 Ba6+ 17.Kf3 Nbd7 when he should be able to equalize with careful play, though Chekov evaluates this position as =+) 1 1 . . . . O - O (11.... cxd5!?) 1 2 . N c 3 c x d 5 (12....Re8) 1 3 . N d 5 N d 5 1 4 . cd cd 5 N a 6 1 5 . Bg B g 5 ! Q d 6 1 6 . Qd Qd 4 B f 5 1 7 . h 3 ?! ? ! (17.Bf4 Qc5 1 7 . .. . . .R . R f e 8 1 8 . B f 4 Q c 5 1 9 . R c1 c1 18.Rc1 =+ Chekov) R e 4 ! -+ 20.Rc5 Rd4 21.Nxd4 Bd3 22.Kg1 Nxc5 23.Kh2 Nb3 24.axb3 Rd8 25.Rd1 Be4 26.f3 Bd5 27.Nb5 Rd7 28. Na7 Be6 29.Rc1 h6 30.Nb5 Bb3 31.Rb1 Rd3 32.Nd6!? Bxd6 33.Bxd6 Rxd6 34.Rb3 b6 35.Kg3 Kf8 -+ Svesnikov--Chekov, Svesnikov--Chek ov, USSR 1976 1976.. D 2 d 2 ) 7 . cx c x b 4 ! ? d x c 4 8 . Qx Qx d 8 + K x d 8 White will recover his pawn in this li ne, but it is unclear whether he can hope for more than that. The available games are worth careful study since the lines can really go either way here with the slightest improvement. D 2 d 2 a ) 9 . N c3 c3 D 2 d 2 a 1 ) 9 . .. . . .B .B e 6 1 0 . B f 4 N a 6 1 1 . a 3 h 6 1 2 . N d 4 K e 7 1 3 . OO- O - O R h d 8 1 4 . f 3 c 6 1 5 . N c e2 e 2 N h 5 1 6 . B e 3 N c7 c7 1 7 . g 4 N f 6 1 8 . g 5 h x g 5 1 9 . B x g 5 K f 8 2 0 . h 4 R d c8 c8 2 1 . h 5 = Nh7 22.Rdg1 Nxg5 23.Rxg5 a5 24.bxa5 f6 25.Rg2 c5 26.Nc2 Kf7 27.Nf4 Rxa5 28.Ng6 Rg8 29.f4 c3 30.f5 Bb3 31.h6 gxh6 32.Rxh6 Ke8 33.Rh7 Bf7 34.Re2 Nb5 35.e5 Bxg6 36. exf6+ Kf8 37.fxg6 Rxg6 38.Rxb7 Rxf6 39. Rb8+ Kg7 1/2-1/2 Burkett--Fuzishawa, IECG 2001. 2001. D2d2a2) 9....Nc6 10.O-O Nxb4 11.Bg5 K e 8 1 2 . R ab a b 1 a 5 1 3 . N d 2 R a6 a6 1 4 . N x c 4 B e 6 (14....Rc6 15.Nxa5) 1 5 . N e 5 N d 7 1 6 . Rfd1 f6 17.Nxd7 Bxd7 18.Bf4 Kd8 19.a3 R c6 c6 2 0 . N b 5 N a 6 2 1 . N d 4 R c 4 2 2 . Rx Rx b 7 B a 4 2 3 . R d 3 g 5 2 4 . B e 3 K c 8 2 5 . Ra Ra 7 N c 5 2 6 . R a8 a 8 + K b 7 2 7 . Rx Rx h 8 N x d 3 2 8 . R x h 7 (28.h4! gxh4 29.Rxh7 Rc3 30.Rh5! Burkett) 2 8 . . . R c 3 29.Ne6 Bb3 30.Nd4 Bc4 31.h4 Rxa3 32.h5 Ne5 33.g3 Ra1+ 34.Kh2 Rd1 01 Burkett--Malms Burkett--Malmstrom, trom, IECG 1996 1996.. D 2 d 2 b ) 9 . Bg B g 5 ! K e 8 1 0 . N c 3 c 6 1 1 . O - O? O? ! B e 6 1 2 . R f d 1 N b d 7 1 3 . Rd Rd 4 h 6 1 4 . Bx Bx f 6 g x f 6 1 5 . N d 2 N b 6 1 6 . f 4 R d 8 1 7 . Rx R x d 8 + K x d 8 1 8 . f 5 B c8 c8 1 9 . a4 a4 K e 7 2 0 . a 5 N d 7 2 1 . N x c4 c 4 N e 5 2 2 . N e3 e 3 (22.Nxe5 =) 2 2 . .. . . .R .R d 8 2 3 . R d 1 R x d 1 + 2 4 . N c x d 1 N d 3 2 5 . N c2 c2 B d 7 2 6 . K f 1 c 5 ! 2 7 . K e 2 ? ! (27.Nc3 =+) 2 7 . . . . N x b 4 -+ 28.Nxb4 cxb4 29. Nb2 Kd6 30.Ke3 Kc5 31.g4 Bb5 32.h4 b6 33.axb6 Kxb6 34.e5 a5 35.exf6 a4 36.Nxa4+ Bxa4 37.Kd2 Bd7 0-1 Janecek--Njedlo, Janecek--Nje dlo, Decin 1995 1995.. D 2 d 3 ) 7 . Qa Qa 4 + This move leads to complex play but appears to yield White at least a slight plus. White generally has good chances of attack in all lines,



especially with Bishops of opposite color on the board and Black's King often stuck in the center. In previous analysis I had suggested that this line was good for Black, but more careful scrutiny has led me to reverse that assessment. D 2 d 3 a ) 7 . . . . N c 6 ? (Though a natural move, this hands White a piece). 8 . e x d 5 O - O 9 . OO- O N x d 5 1 0 . B x d 5 Q x d 5 1 1 . c x b 4 +- Bg4 12.Nbd2 Rfe8 13.b5 Ne5 14. Nxe5 Qxe5 15.Rb1 Be2 16.Re1 Qd5 17.Nf1 Re4 18.Ne3 Bd3 19.Qb3 Bc4 20.Qc3 1-0 Jaeckle--Wulf, Germany 1995.. 1995 D 2 d 3 b ) 7 . .. . . .c .c 6 8 . Qx Q x b 4 d x c 4 9 . B a 3 ! N a 6 1 0 . Qx Qx c 4 += Be6 11.Qe2 c5 12.Ng5 Qc8 13.O-O O-O 14.e5 Ne8 15.Nd2 Nec7 16.Nde4 h6 17.Nd6 Qd7 18.Nge4 Qc6 19. f4 Bd5 20.Rae1 Bxe4 21.Nxe4 Nb5 22.Bc1 Rfe8 23.a4 Nbc7 24.Nd6 Rf8 25.Qg4 Ne8 26.Nxe8 Rfxe8 27.f5 Kh8 28.f6 Rg8 29.Qh5 Kh7 30.Rf3 Qc8 31.Rh3 Qf8 32.Qf5+ g6 33.Qg5 Rh8 34.Rxh6+ Kg8 35.Rxg6+ 1-0 PitschkaVrona, Budapest 2002. 2002. D 2 d 3 c ) 7 . .. . . .N .N b d 7 D 2 d 3 c 1 ) 8 . Qx Q x b 4 ? ! d x c 4 ! (This move appears more flexible than 8....a5 9.Qa4 dxc4 10.e5 when the Knight at d7 is temporarily pinned, or 8....c5 9.Qa4 dxc4 10.e5 when the pawn at c5 is loose in some lines.) 9 . e 5 (9.Qxc4?! O-O 10.O-O Re8 11. Nbd2 Nb6 12.Qb4 a5 13.Qb1 Bg4 =+) 9 . . . . N g 4 (Alternatives are 9....Nd5!? 10.Qxc4 Ndb6 11.Qe4 or 9....Ne4!? 10.Qxc4 Ndc5, both of which look good for White.) D 2 d 3 c 1 a) a ) 1 0 . e6 e 6 N b 6 ! (10.... fxe6 11.Qxc4 Nde5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Qb5+ Nc6 14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qh6 Qf6 16.O-O Bd7 17.Bg5 is less clear) 1 1 . e x f 7 + (11.Qb5 +? c6 12.Qh5 Bxe6 13.Nd4 Nf6) 1 1 . . .... Kx Kx f 7 1 2 . N g 5 + K g 6 ! 1 3 . OO- O h 6 =+ D 2 d 3 c 1 b ) 1 0 . Bg Bg 5 f 6 1 1 . ex ex f 6 g x f 6 ! (11....Nxf6 12.O-O +=) 1 2 . B e 3 (12.Qxc4? Qe7+) 1 2 . . . . N d e 5 ! (12....Nxe3 13.fxe3 Nb6 14.Qb5+ Bd7 15.Qh5+ Kf8 16. O-O is unclear) 1 3 . N x e 5 N x e 5 1 4 . OO- O a 5 =+. D 2 d 3 c 2 ) 8 . e5 e5 ! This move, which puts two of Black's pieces en prise , leads to a clear advantage for White. I had thought this move simply transposed to the lines considered above, but it offers White many advantages and thus changes the evaluation of the entire



line. D 2 d 3 c 2 a ) 8 . .. . . .N .N g 4 ? 9 . B x d 5 +D 2 d 3 c 2 b ) 8 . .. . . .N .N e 4 9 . B x d 5 B x c 3 + (9....Nxc3 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qxb4 +=) 1 0 . N x c 3 N x c 3 1 1 . B x f 7 + K x f 7 1 2 . Q c4 c4 + K f 8 1 3 . Qx Qx c 3 += Although material is equal, White has a clear advantage with Black's King stuck in the center. White's attacking chances are also supported by the Bishops of opposite color and his strong pawn majority on the Kingside. D 2 d 3 c 2 c ) 8 . .. . . .d .d x c 4 9 . e x f 6 ! B d 6 (9....Bf8? 10.O-O! ±) 1 0 . f x g 7 ! (10.O-O Qxf6 11.Re1+ Kf8 12.Qxc4 is unclear) 1 0 . . . . Rg 8 (10....Qe7+? 11.Kd1 with the idea of Re1 wins) 1 1 . O - O ! ± White has a very strong attack against Black's King in the center. D2d3d) 7....Bd7 8.Qxb4 D 2 d 3 d 1 ) 8 . .. . . .N .N c 6 9 . Qx Qx b 7 d x c 4 1 0 . N b d 2 += D 2 d 3 d 2 ) 8 . .. . . .d .d x c 4 9 . N b d 2 b 5 1 0 . a 4 N a 6 1 1 . Qa Qa 3 b x a 4 1 2 . O - O R b 8 1 3 . Re Re 1 Q e 7 1 4 . Qa Qa 2 O - O 1 5 . e 5 += Fritz D 2 d 3 e ) 7 . . . .Q .Q d 7 ! (This appears to be the best try for Q x b 4 d x c 4 (Black cannot play 8....Nc6? 9. Black) 8 . Qx Bb5! +- but he can try 8....a5!? 9.Qc5 dxc4 10.Ba3! Ra6!? 11.Nbd2 or 10....Nxe4?! 11.Qe3 f5 12.Nbd2 when, in either case, White will play O-O-O! and build a strong attack on Black's centralized King) 9 . B a 3 ! (Probably the best way to play for an advantage; 9. Qxc4 Qe6! looks dead equal, but 9.e5!? might offer White some play) 9 . . . . N x e 4 (This looks suicidal, but White has a clear edge after 9....Qe6? 10.Ng5! or 9.... Nc6 10.Qxc4) 1 0 . O - O ! ? with unclear play. White's attack should more than compensate for his temporary material deficit. For example: 10....Nc6 11.Qxc4 Qe6 12. Qa4! Bd7 13.Re1 f5 14.Nd4! Nxd4 15.Qxd4 ± D 3 ) 6 . O - O! O! ? If you are especially brave, you might accept the gambit situation wholeheartedly with 6.OO, when play might be reminiscent of the Danish Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2) or the Goring Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 Bb4). White generally does very well in the available games, but Black's play has been weak. More analysis and experience with this line will help to clarify the situation. Likely the greatest challenge to the variation is for Black to accept both pawns with 6....cxb2! since



White is doing fine in all other lines. D 3 a ) 6 . . . . c2 c2 ? 7 . Q x c 2 O - O 8 . N c 3 (8.e5! d5 9.Rd1 +=) 8 . . .. .. B x c 3 9 . b x c 3 d 5 1 0 . e x d 5 c 6 1 1 . Ba B a 3 R e 8 1 2 . Ra R a d 1 (12.d6! +=) 1 2 . . .... c cx xd5 13.Bb3 Nc6 1 4. N g 5 h 6 ? (14....Be6! =+) 1 5 . R x d 5 ! ± (15.Bxd5 +=) 1 5 . .. . . .Q . Q c7 c7 1 6 . B d 6 Q b 6 1 7 . N x f 7 ! ! N x d 5 (17....Be6 18.Nxh6+ Kh8 19.Rg5!) 1 8 . N x h 6 + K h 8 1 9 .B . B x d 5 (19. Nf7+! Kg8 20.Ng5 leads to mate) 1 9 . .. . . .B .B e 6 2 0 . Qg Qg 6 1-0 Acers--Lawless, San Francisco 1972 (20....Bxd5 21.Nf5 Qc7 22.Bxc7 +- or 21....Rg8 22.Qh5#; 20.... Ne7! 21.Qxe6 Nxd5 22.Nf7+ Kg8 23.Qxd5 ±/+-) D 3 b ) 6 . . .. . . N c 6 ? 7 . b x c 3 ! (7.Nxc3!? Bxc3 8.bxc3 d6 transposes to the Goring Gambit after 9.e5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qb3 Qe7 12.Ba3) 7 . . . . B d 6 ? (otherwise White gets a terrific attack with 8.e5) 8 . e 5 ! N x e 5 9 . N x e 5 B x e 5 1 0 . Re Re 1 + D 3 c ) 6 . .. . . .d . d 5 ? ! 7 . e x d 5 ! ? (better 7.Qa4+ or 7.Bxd5! +=) 7 . . . . O - O 8 . N x c 3 h 6 ? ! (8....Nbd7) 9 . Q b 3 ! += Bd6 10.Nb5 Ne8 11.Nxd6 Nxd6 12.Bf4 Nd7 13.Rac1 Nf6 14.Bd3 Nf5 15.Bxc7 Qxd5 16.Bc4 Qe4 17.Rfe1 Qg4 18.Ne5 Qh5 19.Nxf7 Rxf7 20. Rcd1 Bd7 21.Qxb7 Raf8 22.Be5 Be8 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Qxa7 Kh8 25.Bxf7 Bxf7 26. Rd7 Qg6 27.Qb7 Bxa2 28.Red1 Bf7 29.Rd8 Rxd8 30.Rxd8+ Kg7 31.Qb4 Ne7 32. h3 Nc6 33.Qf8+ 1-0 Fink--Langier, Koln 1992. 1992. D 3 d ) 6 . . .. . . OO- O 7 . e 5 ! (7.bxc3?! d5! 8.exd5 Be7! =/=+, see D2d2c above, while 7....Be7?! 8.e5 Ne4 9.Re1 gave White compensation in Schipper-Sacchetto, Zurich Team Championship 1993) 7 . . . . d 5 ! (7....Ne4? 8.Bd5 Nc5 9.bxc3 Ba5 10. Ng5 Ne6 11.Qh5 Nxg5 12.Bxg5 Qe8 13.Bf6! h6 14.Qg6! 1-0 Horowitz--Amateur, Exhibition 1949) 1949) 8 . B b 3 ! ? (8.exf6! dxc4 9.fxg7 Kxg7 10.Qa4! and White has excellent play) 8 . . .. .. N e 4 9 . b x c 3 N x c 3 1 0 . N x c 3 B x c 3 1 1 . B g 5 ! Q e 8 ? ! (11.... Qd7! unclear) 1 2 . Rc Rc 1 d 4 1 3 . Qd Qd 3 (13.Nxd4 =) 1 3 . . . . c 5 (13....Nc6) 1 4 . B c2 c2 g 6 1 5 . Q e4 e 4 Q e 6 1 6 . h 3 N c 6 ? (16....Nd7! =+) 1 7 . B f 6 N e 7 (17....Qf5! 18.Qh4 Qh5! =) 1 8 . Q h 4 h 5 1 9 . B x e 7 Re R e 8 2 0 . Bf Bf 6 c 4 2 1 . Qg Q g 5 K h 7 2 2 . Q x h 5 + 1-0 Mueller-Stein, Nuernberg 1990. 1990. D 3 e ) 6 . . . . c x b 2 ! (Black takes the two pawns and challenges White to mate him) 7.Bxb2 D 3 e 1 ) 7 . . .. . . d 5 ? ! 8 . B x d 5 ! Q e 7 (8....Nxd5 9.exd5 O-O? 10.Qd4 +-) 9 . Bx B x f 6 ! g x f 6 (9....Qxf6?! 10.Qa4+ c6 11.Qxb4 Qxa1? 12.Nc3! +-) 1 0 . Q b 3 += D 3 e 2 ) 7....Nc6 D 3 e 2 a ) 8 . N g 5 0 – 0 9 . e5 e5 D 3 e 2 a 1 ) 9 . .. . . .d .d 5 1 0 . e x f 6 d x c 4 (10.... gxf6? 11.Nxh7 [11.Bd3! h6 12.Qh5+-] 11... Kxh7 12.Qh5+ Kg8 13.Bd3 Re8 14.Qh7+ Kf8 15.Qh6+ Ke7 16.Bxf6+ 1–0 AielloJulius Chessfriends C1 SEMI Email, 1996) 1 1 . f x g 7 Q x g 5 1 2 . g x f 8 Q + K x f 8 1 3 . B c3 c3 (13.Qf3 Be6 unclear) 1 3 . . . . B h 3 ? ! (13.... Bg4!? is unclear) 1 4 . Q f 3 += Bxc3 15.Nxc3 Be6 16.Rab1 Rb8 17.Nb5 (17.Rb5! +=) 17....Bd5 18.Qa3+ Kg8 19.f3 Re8 20.Nxc7 Re2 21.Rf2 Rxf2 22.Kxf2 Qd2+ 23.Kg1 Qd4 + 24.Kh1 Be6 25.Nxe6 fxe6 26.Qa4 Qd3 27. Rc1 Kh8 28.Qxc4 Qd6 29.Qb3 Qd7 30.Rb1 b6 31.Rd1 Qe7 32.Qc3+ 1–0 HopferFawcett, WCCF corr, 1980



D 3 e 2 a 2 ) 9 . .. . . .N .N x e 5 1 0 . B x e 5 d 5 ! By surrendering a piece for three pawns, Black creates a position with chances for both sides. D 3 e 2 a 2 a ) 1 1 . Bd Bd 3 N g 4 ! 1 2 . N f 3 N x e 5 1 3 . N x e 5 Qf Qf 6 1 4 . f 4 B c5 c 5 + ? ! (14...c5! 15.Bc2 Rd8 c2 ? ! unclear) 1 5 . K h 1 g 6 1 6 . B c2 (16.Nc3 c6 17.Qc2 +=) 1 6 . . . c 6 1 7 . N d 2 B f 5 1 8 . B x f 5 (18.g4!?) 1 8 . . ..Q Qxf5 19.Ng4 Kg7 2 0. N b 3 B b 6 2 1 . Qf Q f 3 (21.a4 +=) 2 1 . . ..R R f e8 e 8 2 2 . Qc Qc 3 + ? ! f 6 2 3 . h 3 h 5 2 4 . N h 2 R e 3 2 5 . Qb Qb 4 R a e 8 ? ! (25...Qe4! =+) 2 6 . N c 5 = R8e7 27.Rac1 Re2?! 28.Nf3 Bxc5 29.Qxc5 Qd3? 30.Ne5 R7xe5 31.fxe5 Rxe5 32.Qd6 1– 0 Olsson- Ottengren, Sweden Cht div III corr, 1988 D 3 e 2 a 2 b ) 1 1 . Be B e 2 R e 8 (11... Nd7! 12.Bf4!? h6 [12...Qf6 13. Qd3! g6 14.Bd2 +=] 13.Nf3 Qf6 14.Qd4 =) 1 2 . B c3 c3 B d 6 1 3 . Re1 c5 14.Qc2 d4 1 5.Bc4 R f 8 1 6 . B d 2 Q c 7 1 7 . f 4 ! ? [17. h3 +=] 1 7 . .. . . Bd B d 7 1 8 . N c3 c3 B c 6 19.Nce4 Nxe4 20.Nxe4 Bxf4 2 1 . B x f 4 Q x f 4 2 2 . N x c 5 R a c8 c8 2 3 . R ac ac 1 Q g 5 2 4 . N b 3 B d 5 2 5 . Qe 2 ± Rce8 26.Qf1 Rxe1 27. Rxe1 Rc8 28.Bxd5 Qxd5 29. Qd3 Rd8 30.Qxd4 Qxd4+ 31. Nxd4 g6 32.Nf3 Rd7 33.Re8+ Kg7 34.Kf2 f5 35.Ke3 Kf7 36. Ra8 Re7+ 37.Kd3 Rd7+ 38.Nd4 a6 39.a4 Kf6 40.Re8 Rd6 41.g3 h5 42.Kc4 b6 43.h4 Kf7 44.Ra8 a5 45.Rb8 Kg7 46.Rb7+ Kg8 47. Re7 f4 48.gxf4 Kf8 49.Re6 Rxe6 50.Nxe6+ Ke7 51.Kd5 1– 0 Simpson-Angus, corr, 1996 D 3 e 2 b ) 8 . a 3 ! ? B a 5 (8....Bc5? 9.Ng5 O-O 10.Nxf7 Rxf7 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.e5 ± Schwarz, quoted in Müller and Voigt) 9 . N g 5 (9.e5!? Konikowski in ChessBase Magazine 50) 9....Qe7 (9....O-O 10.e5 d5 11.exf6 dxc4 12.Qh5! h6 13.fxg7 Qxg5 14.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 15.Qe2 Be6 is unclear according to Müller and Voigt) 1 0 . Bx Bx f 7 + K f 8 1 1 . B d 5 ? ! (11.Bb3 and White has compensation Qx d 5 h 6 according to Müller and Voigt) 1 1 . . .... N x d 5 1 2 . Qx =+ 13.Nh3 Qf7 14.Nc3 d6 15.Qd3 Ne5 16.Qg3 Nc4 17. Bc1 Qf6 18.Nd5 Qxa1 19.Qf3+ Ke8 20.Qh5+ Kd7 21.Qf5 + Kc6 22.Ne7+ Kb6 23.Qe5 Qxe5 0–1 Nilsson-Mellbin, Sweden I/424 corr SSKK, 1989. 1989.



D 3 e 3 ) 7 . . .. .. OO- O 8 . e 5 ! (8.Ng5?! d5! =+ or 8.Qb3 Be7?! [8....Nc6! = +] 9.Nc3 Nc6 10.e5 Nh5 11.Nd5 Na5 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.Qa4 Nxc4 14.Qxc4 d6 15.exd6 Qxd6 16.Rad1 Qe7 17.Rfe1 Be6 18.Qb5 Nf6 19. Ng5 Rfd8 20.Rxd8+ Rxd8 21.Nxe6 Qxe6 22.Rf1 Qd5 23.Qa4 a6 24. h3 Qd6 25.Rc1 c6 26.Qa5 Re8 27.Rf1 h6 28.Qb6 Qd7 29.Qb3 Re6 30.Ba1 Qe7 31.Bc3 Nd5 32.Bb2 Re1 33.Qg3 Rxf1+ 34.Kxf1 f6 0-1 Jacko--Parpel, Jacko--Parpe l, Chrudim 1993) 1993) D 3 e 1 ) 8 . . .N .N g 4 9 . Qd Qd 4 d 6 ! (9...Be7? 10.Qxg4 d5 11.e6 Bf6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Bd3 Bxe6 14.Qb4±; 9...d5 10. Bxd5 +=; 9...Nh6? 10.e6±) 1 0 . e x d 6 (10.e6 Qf6 11. exf7+ Kh8 is unclear) 1 0 . . ..N N f 6 1 1 . d x c 7 Q x c7 c7 1 2 . Q h 4 (or 12.Bxf7+ Qxf7 13.Qxb4 Nc6 14.Qh4 =) and White seems to have adequate compensation for the pawn. D 3 e 2 ) 8 . .. . . d 5 9 . e x f 6 d x c 4 1 0 . Qa Q a 4 (10.fxg7 Re8 11. Qa4 transposes) 1 0 . . .... N c6 c6 1 1 . f x g 7 R e8 e8 1 2 . a 3 B d 6 1 3 . N b d 2 +=. D 3 e 3 ) 8 . .. . . .N .N h 5 9 . B d 3 ? (9.Nc3! gives White adequate compensation according to Müller and Voigt) 9 . . . N f 4 ! 1 0 . Q c2 c2 N x d 3 1 1 . Q Qx x d 3 d 5 1 2 . N b d 2 c 5 –+ 13.Rac1 c4 14.Qe3 Nc6 15.Rfd1 Qa5 16.Nf1 Qxa2 17.Bd4 Bg4 18. Ra1 Qc2 19.Rdc1 Qe4 20.Bc3 Bxf3 21.gxf3 Qg6+ 22. Kh1 Bxc3 23.Qxc3 Rfe8 24.f4 Qe4+ 25.Kg1 Nd4 26.Ng3 Qxf4 27.Rd1 Nf3+ 28.Kg2 Nh4+ 29.Kf1 Rxe5 30.Ra3 Qg4 31.Qxe5 Qxd1+ 32.Qe1 Qxe1+ 33.Kxe1 b5 34.Ne2 b4 35.Ra5 Nf3+ 36.Kd1 d4 37.Rf5 d3 38.Nc1 b3 39.Rb5 Re8 40.Nxb3 Re1# 0–1 J. Betita-D. Koltygin, IECG, 1999 D 3 e 4 ) 8 . . .. .. N e 4 ! 9 . B d 5 ! (Probably best, and at least very unclear. White might also consider 9.h4!? keeping the Knight out of g5 or 9.Qd4!? Ng5! 10.Nxg5 Qxg5 11. Bxf7+ Rxf7 12.Qxb4 Na6 13.Qd4 with some . . .N .N g 5 1 0 . N x g 5 Q x g 5 1 1 . f 4 B c 5 + compensation.) 9 . .. 1 2 . K h 1 Q h 6 1 3 . f 5 ! c 6 ! 1 4 . Bb B b 3 d 5 ! 1 5 . N d 2 B e3 e3 1 6 . B c3 c 3 B f 4 ! ? 1 7 . g 3 ! B x g 3 1 8 . Qe Q e 2 B f 4 1 9 . Rx Rx f 4 ! Q x f 4 2 0 . Rf Rf 1 Q g 5 ? (Necessary here or on the next move was 20....Qh6) 2 1 . e 6 f 6 (21....fxe6!? 22.Rg1 Rxf5 23.Rxg5 Qh 4 2 3 . Rg Rg 1 ± Kh8 24.Nxf6! gxf6 Rxg5 +=) 2 2 . N e 4 ! Qh 25.e7 Re8 26.Qe1! Qh6 27.Qe3! Qh4 28.Qf4! 1-0 Horowitz--Mayagoitia, Horowitz--Ma yagoitia, Mexico City Exhibition 1947. 1947.

Line E >>>



The Urusov Gambit - Line E - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d6


s

E) 4 . . . . d 6

I n d e x o f L in in e s Introduction

E1 ) 5.e5

E2 ) 5.Nxd4

E3 ) 5.Ng5

E4 ) 5.O-O!

A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ... B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4 C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ E) 4.Nf3 d6 F) 4.Nf3 c5 G) 4.Nf3 Bc5 H) 4.Nf3 d5 I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ... J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ...

P o si si t i o n a f t e r 4 . N f 3 d 6


T he move 4....d6 can transpose to the Antoshin Variation of Philidor's Defense and gives Black good chances of equality. This line was generally dismissed by past analysts due to their mistaken assessment of the line beginning 5.Ng5 as advantageous advantageous for White. That line is clearly equal, however, so White's best chance for an advantage therefore must lie in 5.O-O! with transposition transposition to Philidor Defense lines where White can only maintain the advantage with active play.


E1 ) 5 . e 5 ? ! d x e 5 6 . N x e 5 B e 6 7 . B x e 6 f x e 6 8 . O - O Q d 5 9 . R e1 e 1 B d 6 1 0 . B f 4 N c 6 =+ Sanchez--Lezcano,, 1993 Sanchez--Lezcano 1993.. E2 ) 5 . N x d 4 ? ! N x e 4 6 . O - O (6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 [7....Ke7? 8.Qe2 Qe8 9.f3 +=] 8.Qd5 e 1 N f 6 (8....Nc5) 9 . Q e 2 Re Re 8 1 0 . + Kg7 9.Qxe4 Qe7 =+) 6....Be7 (6....d5) 7 . Q h 5 O - O 8 . R e1 ? (10....Bd7 =+) 1-0 Horowitz--Amateur 1949 1949. . Bg5 Nbd7 1 1 . Bx B x f 7 + ! K x f 7 1 2 . N e6 e6 E3 ) 5 . N g 5 E3 a ) 5 . . .. . . B e6 e 6 6 . B x e 6 (6.Nxe6 fxe6 7.Bxe6 Qe7 8.Bc8 Qxe4+ 9.Qe2 Qxe2+ 10. Kxe2 Nbd7 11.Bxb7 Rb8 12.Bc6 += Bilguer) 6 . . .. . . f x e 6 7 . O - O (7.f4!?; 7.Nxe6 Qe7 8.Nd4 Qe4+ 9.Qe2 Qe2 10.Ke2 Kd7! 11.Nc3 Nc6 = Bilguer) 7 . . . . Q d 7 8 . f 4 h6 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Nxd4 Nxe4 11 .Q Qh h 5 + K d 8 1 2 . N b 3 N f 6 1 3 . Q e2 e2 B e 7 1 4 . N c 3 R e8 e 8 1 5 . Rd Rd 1 b 6 1 6 . a 4 a 5 1 7 . Qf Qf 3 and White had sufficient compensation

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/E.html (1 of 6)28/09/06 07:09:52


for the pawn in Wolff--Asmah, Copenhagen 1982. 1982. E3 b ) 5 . . .. .. d 5 6 . e x d 5 (6.Bxd5? Nxd5 7.Qxd4? Nb4! -+; 6.Qxd4? h6! -+) 6 . . . . h 6 (6....Bd6 7.Qxd4 O-O 8.O-O Qe7 9.Nc3 Ng4 10.Nf3 c6 11.Bg5 Qc7 12.g3 += Havlik--Vrany 1998) 7 . N f 3 (7.d6? hxg5 8.Qe2+ Kd7 9.Bxf7 cxd6 -+; 7.Qe2+ Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Bxe7 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.d6+ Be6 11.Bxe6+ Kxe6 12.dxe7 =) 7 . . . . B b 4 + (Compare line H4 below, noting that Black here has played ....h6 with tempo thus denying White the possibility of Bg5 in lines following 8.c3) 8 . Bd Bd 2 B x d 2 + (8....Qe7+ 8.Qe2 Bxd2+ 9.Nbxd2 +=) 9 . Q x d 2 = E4 ) 5 . O - O! O! Most sources simply cite the weakly contested game MacDonnell--Ste MacDonnell--Steinitz, initz, London 1866 as evidence that this line is equal and should be rejected in favor of E3 above. Based on my assessment of E3b, however, I think that 5.O-O must be White's best chance for an advantage. Black certainly has good defensive resources, but White should retain a slight edge. Lines generally transpose to the Antoshin Variation of Philidor's Defense. E4 a ) 5 . . .. . . c5 c 5 ? ! 6 . N g 5 ! (6.c3!?) 6 . . .. . . d 5 7 . e x d 5 B d 6 (7....Nxd5? 8.Nxf7! ± as in the Lolli Attack, Attack, for example: 8....Kxf7 9.Qf3+ Qf6 10.Qxd5+ Be6 11.Qxb7+ Be7 12.Bxe6+ Qxe6 13.Qxa8 +- Perez-Oyhantcabal, Uruguay 1997) 8 . Re Re 1 + K f 8 9 . c 3 ! h 6 1 0 . N f 3 d x c 3 1 1 . N x c3 c 3 a 6 1 2 . a4 a 4 + = Bf5 13.Nh4 Bg4 14.f3 Bd7 15.g3 g5 16.Ng2 Kg7 17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.fxe4 Re8 19.Bd2 Bh3 20.Qh5 Qc8 21.Rf1 f6 22. Rxf6 Kxf6 23.Qxh6+ Ke7 24.Bxg5+ Kd7 25.Qxh3+ Kc7 26.Qxc8+ Kxc8 27.Re1 Nd7 28.Bf4 Kc7 29.Bxd6+ Kxd6 30.Nh4 Ne5 31.b3 Rh8 32.Nf5+ Kd7 33.Kg2 Rab8 34.Ra1 Rhe8 35.Ng7 Re7 36.Nf5 Ree8 37.Be2 Rbc8 38.Rc1 Ng6 39.Bh5 Rg8 40.Bg4 Ne5 41.Bh3 Ng4 42.Ne3 1-0 Stange-Van der Vegt, Leiden NED 1997.. 1997 E4 b ) 5 . . .. .. B g 4 ? ! 6 . e 5 ! (6.Qxd4 Bxf3 7.gxf3 Nc6 8.Qe3 =; 6.c3!? dxc3 7.Nxc3 Be7 8.e5!? dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Bxd8 10.Nxe5 = Olschok-Mungard, Pinneberg 1992) E4 b 2 a ) 6 . .. . . .B . B x f 3 7 . Qx Qx f 3 d x e 5 8 . Q b 3 ! (Better than 8.Qxb7 Nbd7 9.Qb3 Qe7 10.c3 and Black's game is far from pleasant but the . . .B .B d 6 9 . B x f 7 + K f 8 1 0 . Q x b 7 += position remains unclear) 8 . .. E4 b 2 b ) 6 . .. . . .d .d x e 5 7 . Bx B x f 7 + K e 7 8 . Bb B b 3 ! ? N c 6 9 . Re Re 1 K d 7 1 0 . B g 5 Q e 8 1 1 . B a4 a 4 B d 6 1 2 . Bx Bx f 6 g x f 6 1 3 . N x e5 e 5 + f x e 5 1 4 . Qx Qx g 4 + Qe 6 1 5 . Qg Qg 7 + Q e 7 1 6 . Qg Q g 4 + Q e 6 1 7 . Qg Qg 7 + Q e 7 1 8 . Qx Qx e 7 + ! K x e 7 1 9 . B x c 6 b x c 6 2 0 . N d 2 Bb B b 4 2 1 . Rx Rx e 5 + K f 6 ± 22.Nf3 Bd6 23.Re4 c5 24.Rae1 Rhf8 25.b3 Rab8 26.Ne5 Rbd8 27.Nd3 Kg7 28.h3 Kf6 29.f4 h5 30.g4 hxg4 31.hxg4 Kg7 32.Kg2 Kf6 33.Re6+ Kg7 34.Kf3 Kf7 35. f5 Rh8 36.Ne5+ Bxe5 37.R1xe5 d3 38.cxd3 Rxd3+ 39.Re3 Rh3+ 40. Kf4 Rd4+ 41.Kg5 Rxe3 42.Rxe3 c4 43.Rc3 1-0 Von Fabeck-Rettstadt, Werther Schloss 1996. 1996. E4 c ) 5 . . . . B e 7 (5....Nc6 6.Nxd4! Ne5!? 7.Bb3! Be7 8.Nc3 +=) E4 c 1 ) 6 . B g 5 ? ! (Better 6.Re1! or even 6.Qxd4!?) 6 . . . . c 5 ! ? (This seems justified by White's Bishop move, move, which will likely lead to the c3 d x c 3 exchange of the dark-squared Bishop at some point) 7 . c3 (Too risky, even for Steinitz, was 7....Nxe4? 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Re1 f5 10.Nfd2! ±) 8 . N x c 3 O - O 9 . Q e 2 (The Queen is misplaced here and subjects the Knight at f3 to a pin by Bg4. Better, as before, was 9. Re1!) 9 . . .. . . N c 6 1 0 . h 3 (Eventually necessary to prevent Bg4, but .. .B . B e 6 1 1 . B d 3 ? ! (11.Rad1 Re8 12.Bxe6! White is losing time) 1 0 . .. fxe6 13.Qc4 unclear) 1 1 . .. . . .a . a 6 1 2 . Ra Ra d 1 Q c 7 1 3 . B x f 6 B x f 6 1 4 . N d 5 Q d 8 1 5 . B b 1 B d 4 =+ 16.g4?! h5! 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Rxd4? cxd4 19. Qd3 hxg4 20.e5 Qh4! 21.Ne7+ Kh8 22.exd6 gxh3 23.f4 Bc4 24.Qf3



Bxf1 25.Kxf1 h2 -+ 26.Be4 Rad8 27.Nf5 h1=Q+ 28.Qxh1 Qxh1+ 29. Bxh1 d3 30.Bxb7 g6 31.Bxa6 gxf5 32.Bxd3 Rxd6 33.Bc4 Rd2 0-1 MacDonnell--Steinitz, MacDonnell--Ste initz, London 1866. 1866. E4 c 2 ) 6 . N x d 4 ? ! OO- O (6....Nxe4! 7.Qh5 O-O 8.Re1 Nf6 =+ transposes to E2 above) 7 . N c 3 (7.Re1! transposes to E4b3 below) 7 . . . . N x e 4 (7....a6!? 8.a4 Nc6 9.Bf4?! Nb4! 10.Bb3 c5 11.Nf3 Be6 12. Nd2 d5 =+ Angantyson--Antoshin, Angantyson--Antoshin, Reykjavik 1976) 8 . N x e4 e4 d 5 9 . B d 3 d x e 4 1 0 . B x e 4 B f 6 (10....Nd7 = Larsen, 10....Na6!?) 1 1 . c 3 R e8 e 8 1 2 . Q c2 c2 g 6 1 3 . Bf B f 4 B e 5 ? ! (13....Nd7 14.Rad1 Qe7 += Holmov) 1 4 . B x e 5 R x e 5 1 5 . f 4 R e 7 1 6 . f 5 += Dvoretsky--Chepukaitis, USSR 1968. E4 c 3 ) 6 . R e 1 ! E4 c 3 a ) 6 . . . . c5 c5 7 . c 3 += E4 c 3 b ) 6 . . .. .. B g 4 7 . e 5 ! (7.c3!? dxc3 8.Qb3!?, 8.e5!?, 8. Nxc3; 7.Qxd4 Bxf3 8.gxf3 Nc6 9.Qe3 O-O 10.Nc3 Ne5 11.Bf1 Ng6 12.f4 d5! 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.exd5 Bd6 15. Qf3 Qf6 = Paakkonen-Hermlin, Helsinki Open 1998) E4 c 3 b 1 ) 7 . .. . . .B .B x f 3 8 . Qx Q x f 3 d x e 5 9 . Qx Qx b 7 N b d 7 1 0 . c3 c 3 c 5 1 1 . N d 2 is unclear. E4 c 3 b 2 ) 7 . .. . . .d .d x e 5 8 . Bx Bx f 7 + K f 8 9 . B b 3 ! ? (9.Bc4 e4?! [9....Nc6 10.h3 Bh5 11.g4 is unclear] 10.Nxd4! Bxd1 11.Ne6+ Ke8 12. Nxd8 Bxc2 13.Ne6 +=) 9 . . .. .. N c 6 1 0 . N b d 2 Bd6 11.h3 Bh5 12.g4 Bf7 13.Bxf7 Kxf7 1 4 . c3 c3 R Re e 8 1 5 . g 5 N d 7 1 6 .g .g 6 + h x g 6 1 7 . N e 4 N c5 c 5 1 8 . N f g 5 + K e 7 1 9 . cx cx d 4 N x e 4 2 0 . N x e 4 K f 8 2 1 . Qf Q f 3 + K g 8 2 2 . N g 5 Rf Rf 8 2 3 . Qb Qb 3 + K h 8 2 4 . Qg Q g 3 K g 8 2 5 . Qb Qb 3 + K h 8 2 6 . R e 4 ± Rf4 27.Bxf4 exf4 28.Nf7+ Kh7 29.Nxd8 Rxd8 30.Qf7 Rf8 31.Qd5 Rd8 32. Qb3 Rf8 33.Rae1 g5 34.Re8 Rf6 35.Qg8+ Kg6 36.R8e6 Nxd4 37.Rxf6+ Kxf6 38.Qd5 Be7 39.Qxd4+ Kf7 40.Qd7 Kg6 41.Qxe7 10 Reinke-Fecke, Germany 1996. 1996. E4c3c) 6....O-O 7.Nxd4 E4 c 3 a ) 7 . . .. . . N b d 7 8 . N c 3 (White can also simply play 8.Nf5 Ne5 9.Nxe7+ Qxe7 10. Bf1 += gaining the longterm advantage of the two Bishops.) 8 . . .. .. N e 5 9 . B b 3 R e 8 1 0 . B f 4 c6 c 6 1 1 . Qd Qd 2 + = E4 c 3 b ) 7 . . .. . . Bd Bd 7 8 . N c 3 N c 6 9 . N x c 6 B x c 6 1 0 . B f 4 (Perhaps better 10.Nd5! since 10.... Nxd5 11.exd5 Bd7 12.Qh5! g6 13.Qf3 += looks good for White. Also possible is first 10.a4 with the idea of b4 and Nd5.) 1 0 . . . . R e 8 1 1 . R b 1 ! ? (The idea of building a queenside initiative here with a4 and b4-b5 is good, but this move seems too slow.) 1 1 . . .... a6 a6 1 2 . a 4 Q d 7 1 3 . B b 3 b 5 1 4 . a x b 5



a x b 5 = 15.h3 Bd8 16.f3 Nh5 17.Bh2 Bh4 18.Re2 b4 19.Nd5 Bb5 20.Rd2 Qc6 21.Rd4 Qc5 22.Kh1 Ng3+ 23.Bxg3 Bxg3 24.Qd2 Bd7 25.Rc4 Qa5 26.Rxc7 Be6 27.Rb7 Qc5 28.Qxb4 Qxb4 29.Rxb4 Rab8 30.Ne7+ Kf8 31.Rxb8 Rxb8 32.Nc6 Rc8 33.Na7 Ra8 34. Bxe6 fxe6 35.Nb5 Rd8 36.c4 Rc8 37.b3 Ke7 38.Ra1 Be5 39.Ra7+ Kf6 40.Kg1 h5 41.Ra6 Rd8 42.Kf2 h4 43.Ke3 Kg5 44.Nc7 Kf6 45.f4 Bc3 46.e5+ dxe5 47.Nd5+ Kf5 48.Nxc3 exf4 + 49.Ke2 Rb8 50.Nb5 g5 51.Nd4+ Ke4 52. Nxe6 Rg8 53.c5 g4 54.Ra4+ 1-0 Taskovits-Sandor, Hungary 1993. E4 c 3 c ) 7 . . .. .. c 6 8 . N c 3 E4 c 3 c 1 ) 8 . . .. . . a 5 9 . a 4 (9.Bf4 Na6 10.h3 Nc5 11.a4 Qb6 12. b3 Re8 13.Qf3 Ncd7 14.Nf5 Ne5 15.Bxe5 dxe5 16.Nxe7+ Rxe7 17.Rad1 += Hracek-Piket, Moscow Olympiad 1994) 1994 ) 9 . . .. .. N a 6 1 0 . Q f 3 N g 4 1 1 . B x a 6 R x a 6 1 2 . N f 5 B x f 5 1 3 . Qx Qx f 5 Q c8 c 8 1 4 . Qx Qx c 8 R x c 8 1 5 . h 3 Ne5 16 .b3 Bf6 17.Bb2 Rd8 1 8 . R ad a d 1 h 5 1 9 . R e3 e3 h 4 2 0 . B a 3 += Nijboer--Cifuentes, Eindhoven 1993. 1993. E4 c 3 c 2 ) 8 . . .. .. b 5 9 . B f 1 b 4 ! ? (9....a6 10.Bf4 Re8 11.h3 Bf8 12.Qf3 Qc7 13.Rad1 Nbd7 14. g4 b4 15.Na4 Ne5 16.Qg3 Ng6 17.Bg2 Nxf4 18.Qxf4 Ra7 19.b3 c5 20.Nf5 Re5 21.Nb2 d5 22. Nd3 Rxe4 23.Bxe4 Nxe4 24. Qxc7 Rxc7 25.Nf4 Bxf5 26.gxf5 += Marin-Ionescu--Olarasu, Marin-Ionescu--Olarasu, Bucharest 1994) 1 0 . N b 1 ! ? c5 c5 11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.exf5 Nc6 13. g 4 d 5 1 4 . B g 2 Bd Bd 6 1 5 . c c4 4 Nd4 1 6 . B e 3 Re R e 8 1 7 . N d 2 Q c7 c7 1 8 . g 5 N e 4 1 9 .N . N x e 4 Bx Bx h 2 + 2 0 . K h 1 d x e 4 2 1 . B x d 4 cx cx d 4 2 2 . Q x d 4 B d 6 2 3 . Bx Bx e 4 R a d 8 2 4 . B d 5 B c5 c5 2 5 . Q Qg g4 g6 26.fxg6 h x g 6 2 7 . K g 2 K g 7 2 8 . f 4 += Beran--Ramik, Czechoslo Czechoslovakia vakia 1990.. 1990 E4 c 3 c 3 ) 8 . . .. . . Re Re 8 9 . B g 5 ! ? (9. a4 a5 10.Bf4 Bf8 11.Qd2 Nbd7 12.Rad1 Ne5 13.Bb3 Ng6 14.h3 Nxf4 15.Qxf4 Qe7 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.Qxf5 g6 18.Qf4 Rad8 = Sepp--Bosboom, Leeuwarden 1993) 9 . . . . a 5 (9....b5? 10. Bxf6! Bxf6 11.Ndxb5! cxb5 12.



Bd5 b4 13.Ne2 ± Lars Bo Bf 8 Hansen) 1 0 . a 4 h 6 1 1 . B f 4 Bf 1 2 . Q d 2 N b d 7 1 3 . R ad a d 1 (13. h3! Ne5 14.Bf1 += Hansen) 1 3 . . .... N e5 e5 1 4 . B b 3 N h 5 1 5 . Be3 Ng4 16.Nde2 Qh4 17.h3 N x e 3 1 8 . Qx Q x e 3 N f 6 1 9 . Qf Qf 4 Q g 5 2 0 . Qx Qx g 5 h x g 5 2 1 . N d 4 g 4 2 2 . h x g 4 B x g 4 2 3 . f 3 Bd Bd 7 2 4 . g 4 g 6 2 5 . K g 2 R ad ad 8 = Campora--Vasquez, Campora--Vas quez, Sao Paulo 1993.. 1993 E4 c 3 d ) 7 . . .. .. a 6 ! E4 c 3 d 1 ) 8 . a 4 c 5 ! (8....Nc6 9. Nc3 Nb4 10.Nd5! Nbxd5 11. exd5 Ng4 12.h3 Ne5 13.Bf1 Bf6 14.Be3 Bd7 15.a5 Re8 16.Qd2 Ng6 17.c4 += Loew--Urban, Bundesliga Germany 1994 or 9. Nxc6! bxc6 10.Nc3 Nd7 11.Bd2 Bf6 12.f4 Bb7 13.Kh1 g6 14. Rb1 Bg7 15.Qf3 c5 16.Nd5 c6 17.Ne3 a5 18.Bd3 Nb6 19.b3 d5 20.e5 Qc7 21.Ng4 Nd7 22.f5 Nxe5 23.Qg3 f6 24.fxg6 Qd8 25. Nh6+ Kh8 26.Qh4 Bxh6 27. Rxe5 fxe5 28.g7+ Kxg7 29. Qxh6+ 1-0 Borman--Neville, Correspondence 1995) 1995 ) 9 . N b 3 ? ! (The Knight is awkwardly placed here and does not help fight for the center. Better plans are to build a kingside and center initiative with either 9.Nf5 Bxf5 10.exf5 d5 11.Bf1 Nc6 12.g4 c4 13.Bg2 Re8 14. Nd2 h6 15.h4 Bc5 16.Rxe8+ Nxe8 17.g5! = with an interesting contest in the center and on the kingside while Black's queenside play is held in check, or 9.Nf3 Be6 10.Bxe6 [10.Qe2!?] 10...fxe6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxd1 13.Rxd1 Rd8 14.Rxd8+ Bxd8 15.Na3 += with good chances in the ending) 9 . . . . B e 6 1 0 . Q e 2 N c 6 1 1 . N c 3 (11.Bxe6 =+ Kosten) 1 1 . . .... N b 4 1 2 . N d 5 B x d 5 1 3 . e x d 5 R e 8 1 4 . Rd Rd 1 B f 8 1 5 . Be Be 3 R e5 e 5 1 6 . Qd Qd 2 N f x d 5 1 7 . B f 4 N x f 4 1 8 . Qx Q x f 4 Q e7 e 7 =+ Mestel-Georgadze, Hastings 1979. 1979 . E4 c 3 d 2 ) 8 . N c3 c 3 b 5 9 . Bf B f 1 (9. Bd5!?) 9 . . . . c 5 ! (9....Bb7 10.Nf5 Re8 11.Qf3 Nbd7 12.Bg5 Ne5



13.Qg3 Ng6 14.f4 h6 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 Ne4 18.Bxe7 Nxg3 19.hxg3 Nxe7 20.c4 bxc4 21.Bxc4 Kf8 22.Rac1 Reb8 1/2-1/2 Mrva-Novak, MarLazne 1989) 1 0 . N d e 2 ! (Perhaps 10.Nb3!? Be6 11.a4 b4 12.Nd5 =, but not 10. Nf5?! Bxf5 11.exf5 d5! 12.a4?! b4! [Black's successful queenside expansion makes all the difference here] 13.Ne2 Nc6 14.Nf4 Nd4 15.g4 b3! 16. cxb3 Rb8 17.Ra3?! Bd6 18.g5 Ne4 19.Nxd5 Nxg5 20.Bg2 h6 21.f6 Re8 22.Rxe8+ Qxe8 23. h4 Qe2! =+ Seret--Kosten, . . .B .B b 7 1 1 . N f 4 France 1992) 1992) 1 0 . .. N b d 7 1 2 . a 4 += b x a 4 1 3 . R x a 4 N b 6 1 4 . Ra Ra 3 R e 8 1 5 . (This advance allows Nfd5?! too many exchanges and thus blunts White's initiative. Better to allow Black to play ....d5 and bypass it with e5! For example: 15.Qf3! Qd7 16.Qg3 Bf8 17.f3 d5 18.e5! Qe7 19.Rb3!? [19. Bd2 Nfd7 20.e6!?] 19....Nfd7 20.Na4 Nxa4 21.Rxb7 c4 22.e6 fxe6 23.Nxd5 Qc5+ 24.Ne3 Nab6 25.Bxc4 Nxc4 26.Rxd7 +=) 1 5 . . .... N f x d 5 1 6 . N x d 5 N x d 5 1 7 . e x d 5 B f 6 1 8 . B c4 c4 Q d 7 1 9 . Ra Ra e 3 R x e 3 2 0 . Rx Rx e 3 R e8 e 8 2 1 . Rx Rx e 8 + Q x e 8 2 2 . Q e2 e2 Q x e 2 2 3 . B x e 2 B x d 5 2 4 . Bx Bx a 6 K f 8 = 25.Bd3 h5 26.c4 Bc6 27. b3 Bc3 28.f3 Ke7 29.Be4 Bxe4 30.fxe4 f5 31.Kf2 Kf6 32.Kf3 g5 33.exf5 Kxf5 34.h3 g4+ 35. hxg4+ hxg4+ 36.Ke3 Be5 37. Kd3 Bf4 38.Ba3 Be5 1/2-1/2 Solak--Gelashvili, Chania Crete 1999.. 1999 Line F>>> F>>>

Contact: Michael Goeller, Goeller , [email protected] Last modified: February 1 , 2003 Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved


The Urusov Gambit -- Line F -- 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 c5


s

F ) 4 . . . . c5 c5


F1 ) 5.Ng5

F2 ) 5.Qe2

F3 ) 5.O-O!


Position after 4.Nf3 c5


T his rarely seen line is playable for Black and deserves more analysis. White gains a small advantage from 5.Qe2 (if Black plays correctly). But more interesting play follows 5.O-O,, which allows White to recover his pawn with 5.O-O excellent chances of gaining an advantage as well.


F1 ) 5 . N g 5 (Even worse is 5.Ne5?! d5! as tried in Smirka-Santasiere, Dimock Theme Tournament 1924) 1924) 5 . . . . d 5 6 . ex e x d 5 h 6 (6....Bd6!? and 6....Bg4 are playable) 7 . Qe Qe 2 + Q e7 e7 8 . Q x e 7 + B x e 7 9 .N . N x f 7 K x f 7 1 0 . d 6 + B e6 e 6 1 1 . B x e6 e 6 + K x e 6 1 2 . d x e7 e 7 K x e 7 =+ Black has a slight edge in the endgame due to his greater control of space. F2 ) 5 . Qe Qe 2 d 5 ! (5....d6? 6.e5 dxe5 7.Nxe5 Be6 8.Nxf7! Qe7 9.Qxe6 1-0 Akos--Csaszar, e x d 5 + B e7 e 7 (6....Qe7?! 7.Ne5 Nbd7 8.f4! +=) Hungary 1968) 1968) 6 . ex F 2 a ) 7 . Bb Bb 5 + ? ! K f 8 ! (7....Bd7? 8.d6 +-) 8 . c 3 (8.O-O a6! [8....Qxd5 9.Re1 Be6 10.Ng5 Nc6 11.Nxe6 Qxe6 12.Qxe6 fxe6 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Rxe6 Rc8 15.Na3 +=] 9.Bd3 Nxd5 10.c3 Nc6 =+) 8 . . .. .. a 6 9 . B a 4 B f 5 1 0 . B c 2 B x c 2 1 1 . Q x c 2 Q x d 5 1 2 . cxd4 Nc6 13 .O O-- O cx c x d 4 1 4 . a 3 N g 4 1 5 . N b d 2 d 3 1 6 . Qc Q c 4 Q x c4 c4 1 7 . N x c 4 b 5 = + 18.Ne3 Nge5 19.Nxe5 Nxe5 20.a4 b4 21.Bd2 a5 22.Rac1 Ng6 23.Nd5 Bd6 24. Be3 Rd8 25.Rfd1 Bxh2+ 26.Kxh2 Rxd5 27.Rc5 Ne7 28.Rc7 Ke8 29.Bc5 Ng6 30. Bb6 Rf8 31.Ra7 f6 32.Rxa5 Rxa5 33.Bxa5 Kf7 34.Bxb4 Rd8 35.a5 Ke6 36.Kg3 Ne5 37.Bc3 h5 38.f4 Nc4 39.Kf3 g6 40.a6 g5 41.a7 g4+ 42.Kg3 Ra8 43.Bd4 d2 44.Kh4 Kf5 45.Bg1 Ke4 46.b3 Ne3 47.Rxd2 Rxa7 48.Kxh5 1/2-1/2 BurkettRaleus, IECG 2001. 2001.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/F.html (1 of 5)28/09/06 07:10:01


F 2 b ) 7 . O - O? O? ! (a trappy line) 7 . . . . N x d 5 ! (7....O-O 8.c3 transposes to F2c1 below) 8 . N g 5 ! ? (8.c3 Nc6 [8....dxc3? 9.Rd1 +-] 9.Rd1 Nb6 =; 8.Qe5?! Nf6 9. Re1 O-O 10.Qxc5 Be6 -/+) 8 . . .. . . OO- O 9 . N x h 7 K x h 7 ! (9....Re8 10.Qh5 Be6 11. Bd3 Qd7 [11....Nb4?? 12.Nf8!! +-] 12.Ng5 Nf6 13.Bh7+ Kf8 14.Qh4 Nc6 15.Bf4 Qh 5 + K g 8 1 1 . Bx B x d 5 N d 7 =+ =) 1 0 . Qh F2 c ) 7 . c 3 = F2 c 1 ) 7 . . . . OO- O 8 . O - O R e 8 ! (This pawn sacrifice seems most promising for Black. Not 8....Nxd5? 9.Bxd5 +-; or 8....dxc3 9.Nxc3 Re8 10.Bg5 Bg4 11.Qd3 += when White has a space advantage and passed pawn) 9 . c x d 4 c x d 4 1 0 . N x d 4 B d 6 (10....Nxd4? 11.Qh5 ±) 1 1 . Qd Q d 3 N b d 7 1 2 . N f 3 N c 5 = and Black has at least sufficient play to recover the pawn later. F2 c 2 ) 7 . . .. .. N x d 5 8 . cx c x d 4 (8.O-O Nc6 9.Rd1 Bg4 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 . . cx c x d 4 9 . N x d 4 O - O (9....Nb6 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Nf5 +=) Nf6 =+) 8 . . .. 1 0 . OO - O N b 6 1 1 . Bb B b 3 Q x d 4 ! (11....Bf6 12.Nb5 Re8 13.Be3 = but White has the more comfortable game) 1 2 . Qx Qx e 7 N c 6 1 3 . Q e 3 = Black's more comfortable development compensates for the two Bishops.

F3 ) 5 . O - O! O! (5.c3?! Nxe4 6.cxd4 d5 =+) F 3 a ) 5 . . .. .. B e 7 ? ! 6 . e 5 N g 4 (6....Ng8 7.c3 +=; 6....Ne4?! 7.Bd5! f5 8.c3! ±) 7 . h 3 N h 6 8 . Bx B x h 6 g x h 6 9 . Re Re 1 (9.c3!) 9 . .. . . .d .d 5 1 0 . e x d 6 Q x d 6 1 1 . N e 5 B e6 e6 1 2 . B x e 6 Q x e 6 1 3 . N a 3 a 6 1 4 . N e c4 c 4 Q g 6 ? ! 1 5 . Q e 2 +- Nc6 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Qxe5 Qg5 18.Qxh8+ 1-0 Escalante--Marko Escalante--Markowski, wski, California 1989. 1989. F 3 b ) 5 . . .. . . d 5 6 . e x d 5 N x d 5 ? ! (6....Be7 7.c3 O-O 8.cxd4 += compare F2b above; 6....a6 7.b4! +=) F3 b 1 ) 7 . Re R e 1 + ? ! Be Be 7 8 . B g 5 N c 6 9 . B x d 5 Q x d 5 1 0 . N c3 c3 Q d 8 1 1 . N e 4 O - O 1 2 . Bx Bx e 7 Q x e 7 1 3 . N e g 5 Q f 6 1 4 . Q d 3 B f 5 1 5 . Q Qc c4 h6 16. N e 4 B x e 4 1 7 . Rx R x e 4 Q f 5 1 8 . Ra Ra e 1 b 6 =+ Kirby--Zackery, San Jose State 1987. 1987. F3 b 2 ) 7 . c 3 ? ! Be B e 7 8 . Q b 3 B e 6 9 . Q x b 7 (9.cxd4 Nc6 10.dxc4 O-O =) 9 . . . . N d 7 1 0 . Q b 3 ? ! (10.Re1 N7b6 11.Bb5+ =) 1 0 . .. . . .R .R b 8 1 1 . Q c 2 N e 3 ! 1 2 . f x e 3 B x c 4 1 3 . Rd Rd 1 d 3 1 4 . Qf Q f 2 O - O =+ Bednarski-Lubinski, Wroclaw Poland 1960. 1960. F3 b 3 ) 7 . N x d 4 c x d 4 8 . Qx Q x d 4 B e 6 (8....Nf6 9.Bxf7+! +-) 9 . R d 1 N c 6 1 0 . Qe Qe 4 +=

Attack) 7....Be7 (7....f6 8.Re1+ F3 b 4 ) 7 . N g 5 ! (Compare the Lolli Attack) Be7 9.Qf3 ±; 7....Be6 8.Re1 Qd7 9.Nxf7 Ne3!? 10.Bxe6! Nxd1 11. Bxd7+ Kxf7 12.Bc8! ±) 8 . N x f 7 ! K x f 7 9 . Q Qff 3 + K e 8 ! 1 0 . Bx Bx d 5 Rf 8 1 1 . Qb Qb 3 Q b 6 1 2 . Q d 3 B f 5 1 3 . Qe Qe 2 ± F 3 c ) 5 . . .. .. N x e 4 F3 c 1 ) 6 . N c 3 ! ? N x c 3 (6....d5 7.Nxd5 =) 7 . b x c3 c 3 d 5 8 . Bb Bb 5 + B d 7 9 . B x d 7 + Q x d 7 1 0 . c x d 4 is unclear.



F3 c 2 ) 6 . N e 5 ! ? d 5 7 . Q h 5 g 6 8 . N x g 6 f x g 6 9 . Qe Qe 5 + Q e7 e7 1 0 . Q Qx xh8 d x c 4 1 1 . Re Re 1 B f 5 1 2 . N d 2 N c 6 1 3 . N x e 4 B x e 4 1 4 . f 3 O - OO- O 1 5 . R x e 4 Q f 7 1 6 . Rf Rf 4 Q e 7 1 7 . Re Re 4 = F3 c 3 ) 6 . Re Re 1 ! d 5 7 . B x d 5 (7.Nc3?! dxc4 8.Nxe4 Be6 9.Neg5 Be7 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11.Rxe6 O-O =+) 7 . . .Q . Q x d 5 8 . N c 3 Q d 8 (8....Qf5!? 9. Nxe4 Be6 10.Qd3! ±) 9 . N x e 4 F3 c 3 a ) 9 . . .. .. B e6 e 6 1 0 . N f g 5 ! (10.Neg5 Be7 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 O-O =) 1 0 . . .... Be Be 7 1 1 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 2 . N x c 5 ! B x c 5 1 3 . Qh Qh 5 + g 6 1 4 . Q x c5 c 5 ± White has very strong play on the dark squares and against Black's weak pawns. F3 c 3 b ) 9 . .. . . .B .B e 7 1 0 . N x c 5 N c 6 1 1 . N b 3 + = F 3 d ) 5 . . .. .. N c 6 ! F3 d 1 ) 6 . e 5 ? ?!! d 5 7 . e x f 6 d x c 4 8 . Re R e 1 + B e 6 9 .f .f x g 7 B x g 7 1 0 . N g 5 Q d 5 1 1 . N c 3 Q f 5 1 2 . g 4 Q g 6 1 3 . N ce c e 4 O - OO- O 1 4 . f 4 B x g 4 ! 1 5 . Q x g 4 + f 5 1 6 . Qg Q g 3 (16.Qh3 h6) 1 6 . . .... f x e 4 1 7 . Q g 4 + R d 7 1 8 . f 5 N e 5 1 9 . Qx Q x e 4 Q h 5 2 0 . Bf B f 4 d 3 ! 2 1 . K h 1 d 2 2 2 . Re R e d 1 N g 4 ! -+ 23. Qxc4 Nf2+ 24.Kg2 Qg4+ 25.Kf1 Bd4 26.c3 Qxf4 0-1 Khropov-Korolev, Leningrad 1964. 1964. F3 d 2 ) 6 . c 3 ?! ?! N x e 4 ! (Minev writes that the hope for 6....dxc3? 7. Nxc3, “when White has more than enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn, pawn, is naive in our lifetime.” Black can also play play 6.... Be7 according to van Wieringen, when 7.cxd4 Nxe4 8.dxc5 Nxc5 9. Nc3 O-O 10.Bf4 brought White some compensation in Deak-Balasz, Hungary 1996, according to Muller and Voigt) 7 . Q b 3 ! ? (7.cxd4 d5 8. Re1 or 7.Re1 d5 8.cxd4 is unclear) 7 . . . . N d 6 ! 8 . Re Re 1 + B e 7 9 . Bd Bd 5 O O (9....dxc3 10.Qxc3 O-O 11.Qxc5) 1 0 . c x d 4 c x d 4 1 1 . Bf Bf 4 N e 8 (11....Nf5!?) 1 2 . N e 5 N x e 5 1 3 . Bx Bx e 5 B f 6 1 4 . Bg Bg 3 d 6 1 5 . N d 2 N c 7 1 6 . N e 4 B e 5 1 7 . f 4 N x d 5 1 8 . Qx Q x d 5 B f 6 1 9 . B f 2 B e 6 2 0 . Qx Qx b 7 d 5 2 1 . N x f 6 + Q x f 6 2 2 . Ra Ra d 1 Q x f 4 2 3 . B x d 4 Q b 8 2 4 . Qx Qx b 8 1/2-1/2 Zavanelli--C.A. van Wieringen, Dick Smit Memorial Correspondence 2000-2001. F3 d 3 ) 6 . Re R e 1 d 6 7 . c3 c3 B g 4 8 . Q Qb b3 Qe7 9.Nbd2 dx c3 10.bxc3 a6 1 1 . h 3 += Fritz F3 d 4 ) 6 . N g 5 ! van Wieringen N e 5 7 . B b 3 gives us a postion reminiscent of lines from the Perreux Variation of the Two Knights Defense: F3 d 4 a ) 7 . . .. . . d 5 (7....c4?! 8.f4!) 8 . R e 1 ! (Not 8.exd5?! Bd6 =+; but interesting might be 8.f4!? Ng6 9.e5 Ne4! 10.c3 or 10. e6!? unclear according to van Wieringen) 8 . . . . d x e 4 (8....h6 9.exd5 hxg5 10.Rxe5+ +=; 8....Bg4!? 9.Ba4+! Nfd7 10.f3 Be7 11. exd5! += and not 9.f3?! h6! 10.Bf4 Bd6 11. exd5 hxg5 12.Bxe5 Bxe5 13.Rxe5+ Kf8 =+ due to the open h-file) F3 d 4 a 1 ) 9 . N x e 4 B e 7 1 0 . B f 4



(10.Nxc5 Nc6) 1 0 . . . . N x e 4 = according to analysis by Cor van Wieringen. But White keeps the initiative here as well: 11. Bxe5 Nf6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qh5 O-O 14.Nd2 (14.c3!?) with chances of building an attack on the kingside with Nd2-f3-h4, Bb3-c4-d3, and doubling Rooks on the e-file. F 3 d 4 a 2 ) 9 . B f 4 ! ? c4 c4 ! 1 0 . B x e 5 cxb3 1 1. (10.Ba4+ Nc6 =) 1 0 . . ..c a x b 3 N g 4 (11....Nd7?! 12.Bf4! +=) 1 2 . R x e 4 N x e 5 1 3 . Rx Rx e 5 + B e 7 1 4 . Q e 2 ! (14.Ra4?! O-O 15.Rxd4 Qc7 unclear) with an interesting position: Black has two Bishops versus White's two Knights, but White has the initiative and pressure against the pawn at d4. I like White's chances better and might prefer this line to the one above. F 3 d 4 b ) 7 . .. . . .h .h 6 ! 8 . f 4 h x g 5 9 . f x e 5 Q c 7 ! 1 0 . B x g 5 (10.exf6?! Qxh2+ gives Black at least a draw if not more) 1 0 . .. . . .Q .Q x e 5 1 1 . Bf4 Qh5 F3d4b1) 12.Qxh5 Nxh5 13. B c 7 d 6 = van Wieringen, and the complications following 14. e5 dxe5 15.Bxf7+ likely lead only to equality again. F 3 d 4 b 2 ) 1 2 . Qd Qd 3 ! ? d 6 (12... Be7 13.Na3) 1 3 . c 3 with relative equality, but White keeps the initiative.

Line G>>> G>>>


The Urusov Gambit - Line G - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Bc5


s

G ) 4 . . . . B c5 c5

I n d e x o f L in in e s

G1 ) 5.O-O

G2 ) 5.e5!


Position after 4 .Nf3 Bc5

L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5

A natural developing move, 4....Bc5 appears to invite transposition transposition to the Max Lange Attack after 5.O-O Nc6. But White can begin an immediate and forcing attack via 5.e5! leading to a clear advantage. There are a number of long forcing lines here, and readers are invited to carry the analysis to a final proof with the aid of a computer.


G1 ) 5 . O - O G1 a ) 5 . . .. . . N x e 4 ? 6 . R e 1 d 5 (6....f5 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Qxd4 Bxg5 9.Qxg7 Qf6 10. Qxg5 +- Zwisler--Andersen, Correspondence 1992) 7 . B x d 5 Q x d 5 8 . N c3 c3 Q h 5 (8....Qf5 9.Rxe4+ Be6 10.Re5 transposes) 9 . Rx R x e 4 + B e 6 1 0 . Re Re 5 Q g 6 1 1 . N d 5 B d 6 1 2 . N f 4 Q f 6 1 3 . N h 5 Q d 8 1 4 . Bg B g 5 Q c8 c 8 1 5 . N x g 7 + K d 7 1 6 . N x d 4 ! ? N c6 c6 1 7 . N x c 6 b x c 6 1 8 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 9 . Rx Rx e 6 ! Q g 8 2 0 . R e7 e 7 + +- Caro--Suchting, Berlin 1897. 1897. G1 b ) 5 . . .. .. d 6 G1 b 1 ) 6 . c3 c 3 d 3 ! (6....dxc3?! 7.Nxc3 O-O 8.Bg5 Be6 9.Bxe6! [9. Qb3?! Bxc4 10.Qxc4 h6 11.Bh4 Nbd7 =+ Schlechter--Marshall, Cambridge Springs 1904] 1904] 9....fxe6 10.Qb3 Qc8 11.e5 Ng4 += Hartlaub--Leonhardt, Hartlaub--Leonha rdt, Hamburg 1906 or 11....dxe5 += ColdeweySchiller, Schleswig Holstein 1995; 1995; 6....Bg4!? 7.cxd4 Bb6 = Tartakower-Berger, Tartakower-B erger, Vienna 1907 1907)) 7 . Q x d 3 N c 6 (7....O-O 8.Bg5 h6 9.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/G.html (1 of 5)28/09/06 07:10:17


Bh4 Nbd7 10.Nbd2 Qe7 11.Kh1 a5 12.Rae1 Re8 13.Bb3 a4 14.Bc2 g6 15.Nd4 Ne5 16.Qe2 g5 17.f4 gxh4 18.fxe5 Bxd4 19.cxd4 dxe5 20.dxe5 Ng4 21.Rf4 Nxe5 22.Ref1 Be6 23.Qe1 Red8 24.Nf3 Ng6 25. Nxh4 Nxf4 26.Rxf4 Rd4 27.Nf3 Rb4 28.Qg3+ Kf8 29.Qg6 Ke8 30. Qxh6 Ra5 31.Ne5 Rxb2 32.Ng6 Rxc2 33.Qh8+ Kd7 34.Qd4+ Qd6 35. Nf8+ Ke8 36.Qa1 Rd2 37.Qg1 Qxf4 38.Nxe6 fxe6 0-1 Fulton-Al Bakhari 1986) 1986) 8 . b 4 ? ! (8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 Bg4 10.Nbd2 Ne5 = Alekhine) 8 . .. . . .B .B b 6 9 . b 5 N a 5 1 0 . e 5 d x e 5 1 1 . Q Qx xd8 + Kxd8 12 . B x f 7 e 4 1 3 . N e 5 B c5 c5 1 4 . N d 2 R f 8 =+ Spielmann--Alekhine, Stockholm 1912. 1912. G1 b 2 ) 6 . b 4 ! ? Bx B x b 4 (6....Bb6! 7.Nxd4 O-O! [7....Qe7 8.Bb2! O-O 9. Nc3 Re8 10.Nd5 +=] 8.Nc3 [8.Re1?! Ng4! =+; 8.f3?! d5! 9.exd5 Nc6! =+] 8....Bxd4!? [Winning a pawn. 8....Bg4 9.f3 Nc6 10.Be3 =] 9.Qxd4 Nc6 10.Qd2 [or 10.Qd1 Nxb4 11.Rb1 Nc6 12.Bg5] 10.... Nxb4 11.Bb2 Nc6 12.Rae1 Re8 13.f4 and White has compensation for the pawn) 7 . c 3 ! B x c 3 (7....dxc3 8.Qb3 d5 9.exd5 Bd6 10.Re1+ Kf8 11.Nxc3 ± Estrin) 8 . N x c 3 d x c 3 9 . e 5 N e 4 (9....dxe5 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Nxe5 Re8 12.Nxf7+ Kd7 13.Rd1+ Kc6 14.Be3 +=; 9....d5 10.exf6 dxc4 11.Qa4+ c6 12.fxg7 Rg8 13.Bg5 ±; 9....Ng4 10.Bg5 Qd7 11.e6!? [Estrin's suggestion. Safer may be 11.exd6 O-O 12. Be7! += winning the exchange since 12....Re8? 13.Bxf7+! Kxf7? 14. Qd5+ Qe6 15.Ng5+ wins the Queen instead] 11....fxe6 12.Nd4 d5 13.Qxg4 O-O! [13....dxc4? 14.Nxe6! Qxe6 15.Rfe1 ±] 14.Bb3 c5 15. Ne2 and it is not clear that White's piece is better than the f our pawns in this complex middlegame.) middlegame.) 1 0 . R e 1 ? ! (10.Qd5! Estrin 10.... Be6 11.Qxb7! Bxc4 12.exd6! c6! 13.Re1 +=) 1 0 . . . . d 5 ! 1 1 . B x d 5 N d 2 1 2 . e 6 ! (If White did not have this brilliant line leading to perpetual check, he would be in trouble.) 1 2 . . .... Q Qx xd5 13.exf7+ K x f 7 1 4 . B x d 2 c x d 2 1 5 . Re R e 5 Q d 8 (15....Qd3 16.Re3) 1 6 . Q b 3 + K f 8 (16....Kf6 17.Qc3) 1 7 . N g 5 Q f 6 1 8 . Qb Qb 4 + Q d 6 1 9 . Qf Qf 4 + Q f 6 2 0 . Q b 4 + 1/2-1/2 Kolodzeyc Kolodzeychik--Profeta, hik--Profeta, Lublin 1961 1961.. G1 b 3 ) 6 . Nx N x d 4 h 6 (6....O-O 7.Nc3 Re8 8.Bg5! += Vazquez-Pinazo, Santa Coloma 2002, 2002, but better 7....Nbd7! 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 Ne5 10. Bb3 Ng6 =) 7 . N c 3 O - O 8 . N f 5 ? ! (8.Nb3 Bb6 9.a4 a5 10.Qf3 =) 8.... B x f 5 9 . e x f 5 c 6 1 0 . Kh K h 1 d 5 1 1 . B d 3 N b d 7 1 2 . B f 4 Re Re 8 1 3 . B g 3 Bolland-Mackenzie, nzie, Weston 1924. 1924. N e 5 = Bolland-Macke

transposes to the Max Lange Variation of the Two Knights G1 c ) 5 . . . . N c 6 transposes Defense (not covered here). You can download a file on the Max Lange in PGN Format from Max Burkett's site.

G2 ) 5 . e 5 !



Since 5.O-O allows Black equalizing options (including transposition to the Max Lange Attack with 5....Nc6), White may do better to force matters with an immediate 5 . e 5 ! The resulting positions resemble the Max Lange Attack in some ways, but here White will have the option of castling long to bring a Rook to the center with gain of time. Black is practically forced to pursue the main line with 5.e5 d5 6.exf6 dxc4 7.Qe2+ Be6 8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Bg5, after which White can use his control of the dark squares to create attacking chances against Black's King in the center. Since some of the lines are quite forcing, this is a prime area to analyze using a computer.

G2 a ) 5 . . .. . . N g 4 6 . h 3 (6.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 7.Ng5+ Kg8 8.Qxg4 Nc6 9.Qf4 Qe7 10.OO Nxe5 11.Re1 d6 = Hopf--Schintgen Hopf--Schintgen,, Bratislaw 1993) 1993) 6 . . .. . . N h 6 7 . Bg Bg 5 B e 7 8 . B x h 6 g x h 6 9 . Qx Qx d 4 += G2 b ) 5 . . .. .. N g 8 6 . N x d 4 (6.c3!) 6 . . . . N e 7 7 . OO- O O - O 8 . B f 4 (8.Be3) 8 . . .. .. N b c 6 9 . Cors--Pietrzak, k, Darm 1995. 1995. c 3 += Cors--Pietrza G2 c ) 5 . . .. . . N e 4 6 . Qe Qe 2 ! (6.Bd5!? f5 7.O-O += or 7.Nxd4!?) 6 . . . . d 5 (6....Bb4+ 7. Kf1 Nxf2 8.Qxf2 +-) 7 . e x d 6 O - O 8 .d . d x c 7 Q x c 7 9 . Qx Qx e 4 B b 4 + 1 0 . N b d 2 Q x c 4 1 1 . c 3 f 5 1 2 . N x c 4 f x e 4 1 3 . N x d 4 B c5 c 5 1 4 . Be B e 3 +- Na6 15.O-O Bg4 16.Rfe1 Rac8 17.Nd2 Rfe8 18.N4b3 Bf5 19.h3 b6 20.Bxc5 bxc5 21.Nc4 Rc6 22.Rad1 Bg6 23.Rd7 Rc7 24.Rxc7 Nxc7 25.Nxc5 Nd5 26.Nb3 Nf4 27.Nc1 a5 28.Nxa5 Ra8 29. Nc6 1-0 Jones--DeCoverly, London 1973. 1973. G2 d ) 5 . .. . . .d .d 5 6 . ex ex f 6 d x c 4 7 . Q Qe e 2 + B e 6 8 . f x g 7 R g 8 9 . B g 5 ! (9.Ng5 d3 10.Nxe6 dxe2 11.Nxd8 Kxd8 12.Bg5+ Kc8 13.Bf6 Nd7 14.Bc3 b5 15.a3 f6 16.Kxe2 Rxg7 17.g3 Kb7 = Magar--Fischer, Correspondence 1993) 1993 ) G2 d 1 ) 9 . . .. .. Qd Qd 6 ! ? 1 0 . O - O ! (10.Nbd2 d3! 11.Qe4 Rxg7 is less clear, but not 10.Nc3? dxc3! 11.Rd1 cxb2 12.O-O b1=Q 13.Rxd6 Qxf1+ 14.Kxf1 cxd6 -+) 1 0 . . . . N d 7 (10....Rxg7 11.Rd1 followed by 12.Nc3 or simply 11.Nc3) 1 1 . Rd Rd 1 Q b 6 1 2 . N a 3 += G2 d 2 ) 9 . . .. .. Qd Qd 5 1 0 . N c 3 ! (10.Nbd2? d3! =+) G2 d 2 a ) 1 0 . . .. .. d x c 3 ? 1 1 . R d 1 c x b 2 (11....Bxf7+ 12. Kf1!) 1 2 . OO - O B x f 2 + 1 3 . Q x f 2 b 1 = Q 1 4 . R x d 5 Qx Qx f 1 + 1 5 . K x f 1 B x d 5 1 6 . Q c5 c5 N c 6 1 7 . Q Qx x d 5 Rx g 7 1 8 . N e 5 ! N d 8 1 9 . Qd Q d 7 + K f 8 2 0 . Be B e 7 + K g 8 2 1 . Qe Qe 8 # 1-0 Goeller--Hall, Union County Ch. 1980 . G2 d 2 b ) 1 0 . . .... Q Qff 5 1 1 . g 4 ! (11.O-O-O?! Nd7 12.Ne4 Rxg7 13.h3 Bb6 14.Qd2 Qxe4 =+ Christie--Feige, Isla Margarita 1998) 1 1 . . . . Q g 6 (11....Qxg4 12.Nd5! +-) 12 . N d 5 ! Q x g 7 (12....d3 13.Qe5 Bb4+ 14.c3 Rxg7 15.cxb4 Nc6 16.Qe3 1-0 Ahlback--Darmog Ahlback--Darmogray, ray, Correspo Correspondence ndence 1978)) 1 3 . O1978 O - O - O K d 7 1 4 . N f 6 + K c8 c8 1 5 . N x g 8 Q x g 8 1 6 . B f 6 d 3 1 7 . c x d 3 N d 7 1 8 . B d 4 cx c x d 3 1 9 . Qx Qx d 3 B d 6 +- 20.a3 a5 21.h3 b6 22.Rhe1 Kb8 23.Ne5 Bxe5 24. Bxe5 Ka7 25.f4 Nc5 26.Qc3 a4 27.Bf6 Ba2 28.Re7 Rc8



29.f5 h5 30.g5 Qh7 31.Qe5 Kb7 32.Qf4 Qg8 33.Qf3+ Kb8 34.Qxh5 1-0 Ahlback--Tijhonen, Correspond Correspondence ence 1979.. 1979 G2 d 2 c ) 1 0 . .. . . .B . B b 4 1 1 . O - OO - O ! ? (Safer is 11.O-O Bxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6! 13.Rad1 Rxg7 14.h4 h6!? 15.Bxh6 Rg4 16. Bg5 Re4 17.Qd2 Bg4 with interesting complications) 1 1 . . .... Bx Bx c 3 1 2 . b x c 3 N c 6 1 3 . h 4 ! (13.Bf6 Qf5 14.Bxd4 O-O-O 15.Rhe1 Qa5 16.Kb1 Nxd4 17.Rxd4 = Euwe/ Hooper; Colin Leach suggests 13....Nb4 14.cxb4 c3 but after 15.Bxd4 Qxa2 16.Bxc3 I don't see Black's attack) 1 3 . . . Q a 5 (13....Nb4? 14.cxb4 c3 15.Rxd4 Qxa2 16.Kd1 Qa1+ 17.Bc1 +-) 1 4 . N x d 4 Q a 3 + (14....Qxc3? 15.Nb5 Qa5 16.Rd5!; 14....Qe5? 15.Nxe6! Qxe6 16.Rhe1; 14.... Nxd4 15.Rxd4 Qxc3 16.Qe5!) 1 5 . K b 1 Q x c 3 1 6 . N x e 6 Q b 4 + 1 7 . K c1 c 1 Q a3 a 3 + 1 8 . K d 2 Qa Q a 5 + (18....Qb4+? 19. Ke3 Qc3+ 20.Kf4 fxe6 21.Qh5#) 1 9 . K e 3 Qe Qe 5 + 2 0 . K f 3 Q x e 2 + (20....fxe6 21.Rhe1 +=) 2 1 . K x e 2 f x e 6 2 2 . B f 6 += White's annoying pawn at g7 should provide a tactical advantage in the ending. See Analysis. Analysis. G3 ) 9 . . .. .. B e 7 1 0 . B x e 7 K x e 7 (10....Qxe7 11.Nxd4 += Fine) 1 1 . Q e 4 (11.Na3!? Qd5 = Euwe; 11.Nh4 Kd7! =+ Fine) 1 1 . . . . N c 6 (11.... Rxg7 12.Nxd4 Rg6 13.Nc3 Nd7 14.O-O-O Kf8 Gresser--Belova, Moscow 1950, 1950, and now not 15.f4?! Bg4! but simply 15.Nxe6+ +=) 1 2 . Qh Qh 7 Q d 5 (12....d3!?) 1 3 . N b d 2 B f 5 (13....c3!? 14.bxc3 dxc3 15. Qh 4 + f 6 ! ? (14....Kd7 15.O-O-O) 1 5 . O - O - O ! Ne4; 13....d3!?) 1 4 . Qh c 3 ! ? 1 6 . b x c 3 Q x a 2 1 7 . N e 4 d x c 3 (17....Qa1+ 18.Kd2 dc3+ 19. Ke3 Qa5 20.Qf6+ Ke8 21.Kf4! Ne7 22.Rhe1 +- but perhaps 17.... Be4!?) 1 8 . Qx Q x f 6 + K e 8 1 9 . Qx Q x c 3 ! B x e 4 2 0 . R h e 1 Rx Rx g 7 2 1 . R Rx xe4+ Game. K f 8 2 2 .N . N g 5 ! K g 8 2 3 .h . h 4 + = Analysis Game. G4 ) 9 . .. . . .B .B b 4 + ! (An astounding novelty. This line has been analyzed for many years and examined by the likes of Reuben Fine and Max Euwe, but to my knowledge no one had ever noticed this annoying little check until Nielsen played it against Zavanelli! This just shows you that there is always room for innovation in chess!) 1 0 . c 3 d x c 3 G4 a ) 1 1 . N x c 3 Qd Q d 3 1 2 . Q x d 3 c x d 3 1 3 . O - OO- O Bx Bx c 3 1 4 . b x c 3 R x g 7 1 5 . Rx Rx d 3 N c 6 1 6 . Rd Rd 2 f 6 1 7 . B x f 6 Rx g 2 1 8 . B h 4 R g 6 1 9 . N g 5 B g 8 2 0 . R Rh h d 1 K f 8 2 1 . Rd Rd 7 R g 7 2 2 . R1 R1 d 3 R e 7 2 3 . Rx Rx e 7 N x e 7 2 4 . R d 7 h 6 2 5 . N h 7 + B x h 7 2 6 . Rx Rx e 7 B g 8 2 7 . R x c 7 Bx B x a 2 2 8 . Rx Rx b 7 += a5 29.Kb2 Bd5 30.Rb6 Kg7 31.Bf6+ Kh7 32.Bd4 Bc4 33. Ka3 Be2 34.f4 1-0 Zavanelli-Nielse Zavanelli-Nielsen, n, Reg Gillman Memorial Correspondence 1999. 1999 . G4 b ) 1 1 . OO- O ! ? G4 b 1 ) 1 1 . . .. . . Qd Qd 3 1 2 . Rd Rd 1 N c 6 1 3 . Rx Rx d 3 c x d 3 1 4 . Qx Qx d 3 c x b 2 1 5 . Bf Bf 6 b x a 1 = Q 1 6 . Bxa1 Rd8 17 .Q Qe e 2 K d 7 1 8 . N g 5 += G4 b 2 ) 1 1 . . .. . . B e7 e 7 1 2 . Bx B x e 7 (12.Bh6!? cxb2 13.Qxb2 Bf6 14.Nc3 Nd7 15.Rfe1 Bxc3 16. Qxc3 Qf6 17.Qxf6 Nxf6 18.Rab1 =) 1 2 . . . Qxe7 13.Nx c3 R Rx x g 7 1 4 . Qe Qe 4 c 6 1 5 . R f e 1 N d 7 1 6 . N d 4 N c 5 1 7 . Qf Qf 3 N d 3 1 8 . N f 5 Q f 8



1 9 . N x g 7 + =/+= Black's strongly placed Knight compensates for White's exchange advantage, but I like White's prospects prospects in the long run.

Line H>>> H>>>

Contact: Michael Goeller, Goeller , [email protected] Last modified: April 1 , 2003 Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved


The Urusov Gambit - Line H - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5


s

H ) 4 . .. . . .d .d 5 5 . e x d 5


H 1 ) 5....Bc5

H 3 ) 5....Bg4

H 2 ) 5....Nxd5

H 4 ) 5....Bb4+

A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ...

H 5 ) 5....Qe7+

B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4 C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ E) 4.Nf3 d6 F) 4.Nf3 c5 G) 4.Nf3 Bc5 H) 4.Nf3 d5 I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ... J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ... L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5

Position after 5.exd5


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


H 1 ) 5 . . .. . . B c5 c5 (5....c5?! 6.O-O! Be7 7.c3 +=) 6 . O - O (6.Qe2+!? +=) 6 . . . . OO- O 7 . N x d 4 (7. Nbd2 c6 8.Nb3 +=) 7 . . . . N x d 5 ? ! (7....c6! 8.Nc3 cxd5 9.Bb3 +=) 8 . N b 3 N b 6 9 . B x f 7 + ± Ravagnati--Chienichetti, Ravagnati--Chienic hetti, Corisco 1991. 1991. H 2 ) 5 . .. . . .N .N x d 5 H 2 a ) 6 . Qx Q x d 4 ? ! B e 6 (6....Qe7+!? 7.Kd1 c6 8.Bxd5 cxd5 9.Qxd5 Be6 10.Qb5+ Nc6 11.Be3 O-O-O+ 12.Nbd2 Rd5 13.Qe2 Qb4 =+ Kuehne--Leopo Kuehne--Leopold, ld, 1994 1994)) 7.OO (7.Bg5!) 7 . . .. . . N c6 c 6 8 . B b 5 N d e 7 (8....Ndb4!?) 9 . B g 5 Q x d 4 1 0 . N x d 4 O - OO- O 1 1 . N x c 6 b x c 6 1 2 . B x e 7 B x e 7 1 3 . Bx B x c 6 R d 6 1 4 . B f 3 R h d 8 1 5 . N a3 a 3 R b 6 =+ Buchner--Morrison, Buchner--Morriso n, Bad Woerishofen 1992. 1992. H 2 b ) 6 . O - O N c 6 (6....Be7 7.Qxd4 += Euwe-Rueb, Correspondence 1925) 1925)

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/H.html (1 of 8)28/09/06 07:10:39


H 2 b 1 ) 7 . Re Re 1 + (7.Nxd4) 7 . . .. . . B e7 e 7 8 . N x d 4 N b 6 (8....O-O? 9.Bxd5 Qxd5 10.Nxc6 Qxd1 11.Nxe7+ 1-0 Curdo--Iapp Curdo--Iappini, ini, Boston 1964) 1964) 9 . B b 5 B d 7 1 0 . B x c6 c 6 (10.Bg5 f6 11.Bxf6? gxf6 12.Qh5+ Kf8 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Nc3 Rg8 15.Qxh7 Rg7 16.Qh6 Kg8 -+ Mieses--Co Mieses--Cohn, hn, Berlin 1914)) 1 0 . .. 1914 .. .b . b x c 6 1 1 . Q e 2 c 5 1 2 . N f 3 B e 6 1 3 . c4 c 4 += Schlechter H 2 b 2 ) 7 . N g 5 ! B e7 e 7 8 . N x f 7 K x f 7 9 . Q f 3 + K e 6 1 0 . N c3 c3 d x c 3 1 1 . R e 1 + N e 5 1 2 . B f 4 B f 6 1 3 . Bx B x e 5 B x e 5 1 4 . Rx Rx e 5 + K x e 5 1 5 . Re Re 1 + K d 4 1 6 . Bx B x d 5 Q f 6 1 7 . Rd R d 1 + K c5 c 5 1 8 . Qe Q e 3 + K b 5 1 9 . a4 a4 + K x a 4 2 0 . Q c5 c5 c x b 2 2 1 . B b 3 # Winckelman--Feist Winckelman--Feist,, Correspond Correspondence ence 1986 1986.. H 3 ) 5 . . .. . . B g 4 6 . Q x d 4 (6.O-O Be7 7.Qd3 c6 8.Nxd4 Nxd5 =) 6 . . .. .. B x f 3 7 . g x f 3 N c 6 8 . Qe Qe 3 + N e 7 9 . Bb B b 5 + c 6 1 0 . d x c 6 Qa Q a 5 + 1 1 . N c 3 OO- O - O 1 2 . c x b 7 + K x b 7 1 3 . b 4 Qc Q c 7 1 4 . Qc Qc 5 N e d 5 1 5 . Ba B a 6 + K b 8 1 6 . Qx Qx c 7 + K x c7 c 7 1 7 . N x d 5 + R x d 5 1 8 . a3 a 3 +- Kichinski--Haigh, Livermore 1989.. 1989 H 4 ) 5 . . .. .. B b 4 + White has three good ways of meeting this move, all of which give him at least a slight edge.

H4a) 6.Bd2

H4b) 6.c3

H4c) 6.Kf1!

H 4 a ) 6 . Bd Bd 2 This move risks nothing and actually gives White good chances in practice of gaining an advantage. 6 . . . B x d 2 + (6....Nxd5 7.O-O Nc6? 8.Bxd5 Qxd5 9.Bxb4 Nxb4 10.Qe1+ Be6 11. Qxb4 +- Thierry--Quadrat, Saint-Quentin 1998; 1998; 6....Qe7+?! 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ 8. Kxe2 Bc5 9.Bg5 Ne4 10.Bf4 c6 11.Be5 Bg4 12.Rd1 O-O 13.Bxd4 Bd6 14.h3 Bh5 15.Nc3 Re8 16.Kf1 c5 17.Be3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Bxf3 19.gxf3 a6 20.a4 Nd7 21.a5 Re7 22.Rab1 Ne5 23.Be2 Ng6 24.Rb6 Rd7 25.Rdb1 Ne7 26.Bc4 Ra7 27.Rxd6 1-0 Klein--Dormann, GER 1994 or 8.Bxe2!? Bc5 9.c4! dxc3 10.Nxc3 Nbd7 11.Bf4 Bb6 12.O-O O-O 13.h3 Nc5 14.b4 Nce4 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Rac1 Rd8 17.Bxc7 Rxd5 18.Bc4 Rd7 19.Bxb6 axb6 20.Rfe1 Nf6 21.Ne5 Re7 22.Nxf7 += ZavanelliPadros, North Atlantic Correspondence 1985) 7 . Q x d 2 (7.Nbxd2 Nxd5 8.Nxd4 Nb6 9.c3 =) 7....O-O (7....Qe7+?! 8.Be2 O-O 9.O-O Nxd5 10.Nxd4 followed by Bf3, and the White Bishop is better placed) 8 . N x d 4 (8.Qxd4 Re8+ 9.Kf1 Re4!? . . N x d 5 9 . O - O N e 7 (= Hooper. Despite the position's balanced or 9....Bf5) 8 . . .. appearance, appearance, Black must play carefully to mitigate White's edge in development, development, e.g.: 9....Na6? 10.Bxa6 bxa6 11.Nc6 Qd6 12.Qxd5! +-; 9....Nb6 10.Be2 c5 11. Nb3 +=) 1 0 . R d 1 +=/= White retains a very slight edge. H 4 b ) 6 . c 3 Qe Qe 7 + ! This move is generally attributed to Panov, but it had been played by Frank Marshall as early as 1900. Not 6....dxc3? 7.Qa4+! +-. White has difficulty proving an advantage, though he does maintain the initiative with active play following 7.Be2.

H4b1) 7.Kd2

H4b2) 7.Be3

H4b3) 7.Kf1

H4b4) 7.Qe2

H4b5) 7.Be2

H4b1) 7.Kd2? -+ This move can really start your opponent’s clock ticking, but that may be its only practical practical value. Black easily gets gets in trouble, however, if he tries too hard for a quick kill. It is worth noting that this move was featured in a fantasy game submitted by readers of Andy Soltis's Chess Life column and subsequently published in his



book Karl Marx Plays Plays Chess Chess and Oth er Reports on th e World' s Oldest Oldest Game (David McKay, 1991, pp. 106-107). That fantasy game seems to have taken on a life of its own, for people have sometimes mistaken it for real theory. Greg Verville (see game cited below) writes that he played this move because he mistakenly thought that it had been recommended in Chess Life . And Soltis himself would later make the same mistake: In annotating the game PillsburyMarshall, Paris 1900 in his book Frank Marshall, United St ates Chess Chess Champion , Soltis remarks "7.Kd2! [sic], threatening 8.Re1, would have tested Black severely" (21). I have been justifiably suspiscious of all analysis by Soltis ever since! H 4 b 1 a ) 7 . .. . . .d .d x c 3 + (Black also has problems putting the game away after 7....Ne4+ 8.Kc2 Bf5 [8....Nxf2 9. Qf1! Bf5+ 10.Kb3 a5 11.a3 Nxh1 12.axb4 Bxb1 13.Bg5! f6 14.Rxb1 Kd8? 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Ne5 Qc8 17.Bxf6+ 1-0 was the composed game given by Soltis] 9.Kb3? [9. Nxd4! unclear] 9...Nc5+ 10.Kxb4 a5+ 11.Ka3 Nb3+ 12. Ka4 Nd7 13.Bb5 c6!? [13....O-O!] 14.dxc6 Nb6+ 15. Kxb3 a4+ 16.Bxa4 Nxa4 17.Re1? Nc5+ 18.Kc4 Be6+ 19. Rxe6 fxe6? 20.Bg5 b5+ 21.Kxb5 Qa7? 22.Kc4 O-O? 23. Nxd4 e5 24.Nb5 Qb6 25.N1a3 Ra4+ 26.b4 Na6 27.Qd5 + Kh1 28.Kb3 Ra8 29.Be3 Qb8 30.Rd1 Nc7 31.Qd8+ 10 Greg Verville-Craig Heirigs, Minnesota 1988) 8 . b x c 3 N e 4 + (8....O-O!? 9.Re1 Qd6 [9....Ne4+? 10.Re4 Qe4 11.Bd3 += or 9....Qc5? 10.Qb3! b5!? 11.Bd3 +-] 10. cxb4 Qxb4+ 11.Nc3 Qxc4 12.Ba3 Bf5! 13.Qe2 Qe2+ 14. Re2 and White has some compensation compensation for the pawn; 8....Bf5 9.Nd4 [9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.cb4 Ne4+ 11.Kd1 Nf2+] 9....Ne4+ 10.Kc2 Bg6 11.Kb2 is unclear, e.g.: 11....Nf2 12.Qa4+ Nd7 13.Rf1 Nd3+ 14.Bd3 Bd3 15.Rf3 Bb1 16. Rb1 Bd6 17.Re3 Be5 18.Ne6! +-) 9 . K c 2 B c 5 (9....Nf2 10.Qd4! Bf5+ [10....Nh1 11.cb4 Qb4?! 12.Ba3 or 10.... Bc5 11.Qg7 Rf8 12.Re1 Bf5+ 13.Kb2 Ne4 14.Bg5 f6 15. Qe7+ Ke7 16.Bf4 are playable for White] 11.Kb3 Nxh1 12.cxb4 and White has a good game, e.g.: 12....O-O 13. Bb2 Qf6 14.Qe3 Qg6 15.Nbd2 etc.) 1 0 . Re Re 1 B f 5 (10.... f5!?) 1 1 . B d 3 O - O unclear. H 4 b 1 b ) 7 . . .. . . OO- O ! 8 . R e 1 (8.Nd4?! Qc5! -+) 8....Qc5 or 8....Qd6 -+ is the easy way for Black to demonstrate White's error. H 4 b 2 ) 7 . B e3 e 3 ? d x e 3 8 . Qa Qa 4 + c 6 9 .Q . Q x b 4 e x f 2 + 1 0 . Kx Kx f 2 Q x b 4 1 0 . c x b 4 c x d 5 =+ H 4 b 3 ) 7 . Kf K f 1 ? ! d x c3 c3 8 . N x c 3 = + H 4 b 3 a ) 8 . .. .. .O . O - O 9 . B g 5 h 6 ! 1 0 . B h 4 (10.h4? Bxc3! 11. bxc3 hxg5 12.hxg5 Ne4 -+) 1 0 . .. . . .B . B f 5 1 1 . Qd Qd 4 N b d 7 = Estrin--Vatnikov, USSR 1961. H 4 b 3 b ) 8 . .. . . .B .B x c 3 9 . b x c 3 O - O 1 0 . Bg Bg 5 h 6 1 1 . B h 4 B f 5 1 2 . Q d 4 N b d 7 1 3 . Re Re 1 Q a 3 1 4 . B g 3 N e 8 1 5 . h 3 N d 6 1 6 . B x d 6 ? ! Qx Qx d 6 =+ 17.Kg1 Rfe8 18.Rxe8+ Rxe8 19.Qxa7 Nb6 20.Bb5 Ra8 21.Qxb7 Rxa2 22.Qc6 Ra1+ 23.Bf1 Bd3 24.Qe8+ Qf8 25.Qxf8+ Kxf8 26.Nh2 Nxd5 27.g3 Nxc3 28.Kg2 Be4+ 29.f3 Ra2+ 30.Kg1 Bd5 31. Bd3 Nd1 32.Ng4 Bxf3 33.Rh2 Rxh2 34.Nxh2 Bc6 35.Nf1



Ke7 0-1 Millet--Chareyre 1990. 1990. H 4 b 4 ) 7 . Qe Qe 2 Q x e 2 + 8 . K x e 2 d x c 3 9 . N x c 3 OO - O (9....Bg4 10.h3 Bxf3+ 11.Kxf3 += Hajkova--Kiske Hajkova--Kiskela, la, Novi Sad 1990; 1990; 9....Bxc3!? 10. bxc3 Ne5!? 11.Bb2 Nd6 12.Bb3 b6 and White’s weak pawns are subject to attack) 1 0 . R d 1 a 6 1 1 . K f 1 Bg Bg 4 1 2 . h 3 B x f 3 1 3 . g x f 3 1997. N b d 7 = Medak--Kapic, Zagreb 1997. H 4 b 5 ) 7 . B e2 e 2 ! d x c 3 8 . b x c 3 (8.Nxc3 O-O 9.O-O c6! = Estrin and Panov, and not 9....Bxc3?! 10.bxc3 Nxd5? 11.Qxd5 Qxe2 12.Ba3 Hausner--Snorek, Hausner--Snore k, Prague 1994 or 9....Nbd7?! 10.Bg5 Bc3 11.bc3 Qc5 12.c4 b6? 13.Nd4 Ne4 14.Be3 Nc3 15.Qc2 Ne2+ 16.Qe2 Qe7 17.Nc6 Qd6 18.Bd4 Bb7 19.Ne7+ 1-0 Laes--Flores, Correspond Correspondence ence 1975)) 8 . . . . Bc 1975 Bc 5 9 . O - O (9.Bg5? Bxf2+! =+) 9....O-O (9....h6?! 10. Bb5+! +=)

H4b5a) 10.c4

H4b5b) 10.Bg5

H 4 b 5 a ) 1 0 . c 4 Re R e 8 (10....c6 11.Nc3 cxd5 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.cxd5 Rd8 14.Bd3 h6 15.Bb2 Bg4 16.h3 Bh5 17. Re1 Qf8 18.Re5 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 Nd7 20.Re4 Bd6 21.Bxg7 Qxg7 22.Rg4 Qxg4 23.Qxg4+ 1-0 Crawford--Steele, Compuserve 1995; 1995; 10....Bg4 11.Bb2!? Nbd7 12.Nc3 Rfe8 13.Re1 Qd6 Vinogradov--Rov Vinogradov--Rovner, ner, USSR 1956 1956,, when Hooper suggests 14.h3 Bh5 15.Nb5 =) H 4 b 5 a 1 ) 1 1 . B d 3 ?! ? ! B g 4 1 2 . B b 2 ? ! (12. Re1? Bf3 -+; 12.Nbd2 Nbd7 = Marshall) 1 2 . . . . N e 4 ! 1 3 . N b d 2 ? (13.Bxe4 Qxe4 14. Nbd2 =+ Marshall) 1 3 . . . . N x f 2 ! 1 4 . R x f 2 B x f 2 + 1 5 . Kx K x f 2 Q e3 e 3 + 1 6 . Kg Kg 3 Q x d 3 1 7 . K x g 4 R e 2 ! 1 8 . K h 3 N d 7 1 9 . Rc Rc 1 h 5 2 0 . Q c2 c2 N c 5 2 1 . g 3 (21.Qxd3 Nxd3 22.Rc2 g5! + 23.Kg3 g4 24.Nh4 Ne1 25.Rc1 Rxd2 26. Bc3 Rc2! -+; 23.Nxg5 Ne1 24.Rc1 Rxd2 25. Bc3 Rd3+ -+; 23.g4 Nf4+ 24.Kg3 Rxg2# Marshall) 2 1 . . .... g 5 ! 2 2 . g 4 R x d 2 2 3 . Qx Qx d 3 R x d 3 2 4 . Rc Rc 3 f 5 ! 2 5 . K g 2 f x g 4 2 6 . N x g 5 R d 2 + 0-1 Pillsbury--Marshall, Paris 1900 (27.Kg3 Rxb2 28.h3 Rf8 29.hxg4 hxg4 30.Kxg4 Rff2) H 4 b 5 a 2 ) 1 1 . N c3 c3 ! N e 4 ? ! (Not 11....Bb4?! 12.Qb3! and Black cannot win the Bishop at e2 due to 12....Bxc3 13.Qxc3 Qxe2? 14.Re1 trapping the Queen. But better here is 11.... Bg4 12.Rb1 Na6! [12....c6 13.Bg5 +=] 13. h3 Bh5 14.Bd3 Nb4 15.Bf5 += or 11....c6! 12.Qb3 Nbd7 13.Bg5 =) 1 2 . N x e 4 Q x e 4 1 3 . B d 3 Q e7 e7 1 4 . Q Qb b3 b6 15.Bb2 Nd7 16 . R ae a e 1 Q f 8 1 7 . N g 5 g 6 1 8 . Rx Rx e 8 Q x e 8 1 9 . N x h 7 K x h 7 2 0 . Bx B x g 6 + K g 8 2 1 . Qh Qh 3 K f 8 2 2 . Q h 8 + K e 7 2 3 . Re Re 1 + 1-0 Gazivoda-Savic, Correspondence 1979. 1979 . H 4 b 5 b ) 1 0 . Bg Bg 5



As the Pillsbury--Marshall game (see H4c5a1 above) shows, White needs to be careful always of Black's attack at f2. The Bishop is better placed at g5 than at b2 since the pin on the Knight at f6 limits Black's opportunities for counterplay. But whether White should reinforce the center by 10.c4 Re8 11.Nc3! or venture immediately 10.Bg5 is unclear. More practice and analysis is needed. White has had good success with 10.Bg5 but there are no available games featuring White's play against Black's most logical move, 10.... Re8. H 4 b 5 b 1 ) 1 0 . . .... h 6 1 1 . B h 4 R d 8 1 2 . Re Re 1 g 5 1 3 . Bc B c 4 B e6 e6 1 4 . N x g 5 ! N g 4 1 5 . N f 3 Qd6 16.h3! Rd7 17.hxg4 f6 18 .Q Qc c 1 1-0 Grave--Zaiser, Correspondence 1965-67. 1965-67 . H 4 b 5 b 2 ) 1 0 . . .... c c6 6 1 1 . c 4 R d 8 1 2 . N c3 c3 B b 4 (14....Qxe2? 13.Qb3! Bxc3 14 .Q Qx xc3 cxd5 15.Rfe1 +-) 1 5 . R Rff e 1 B e 6 1 6 . c cx xd5 Bxd5 1 7 . B c4 c 4 Q c 7 1 8 . B x f 6 g x f 6 1 9 . Qx Qx f 6 ! B x c 4 2 0 . Q g 5 + K h 8 2 1 . Q f 6 + K g 8 2 2 . Re Re 5 N c 6 2 3 . R g 5 + K f 8 2 4 . Re R e 1 1-0 Skatchkov-Lopatskaya, 1996. 1996. H 4 b 5 b 3 ) 1 0 . . .... Q Qd d 6 1 1 . c4 c4 B g 4 1 2 . N b d 2 R e 8 1 3 . B d 3 Nbd7 14.Qc2 h6 15.Bh4 Bxf3 16.Bg3 Ne5 17.gxf3 Nh5 18.Ne4 Qf8 19. Be2 Nxg3 20.hxg3 b6 21.f4 Nd7 22.Kg2 Qe7 23.Bf3 Bb4 24.Rh1 Nc5 25.Ng5 Qf6 26. Qh7+ Kf8 27.Ne4 Nxe4 28.Bxe4 Rad8 29. a3 Bc3 30.Rad1 Rd6 31.Bf3 g5 32.fxg5 Qxg5 33.Qd3 Qe5 34.Rh5 Qg7 35.Rdh1 Ke7 36.R1h4 Kd8 37.Rg4 Rg6 38.Rf4 Be5 39. Re4 Rg5 40.Rh1 Rg8 41.Kf1 Qg6 42.Qe3 Qd6 43.Reh4 R8g6 44.Rxh6 Rxh6 45.Qxg5 + Rf6 46.Rh8+ Ke7 47.Kg2 Bd4 48.Qg8 Rxf3 49.Qf8+ 1-0 Kreindl--Franz, Vienna 1998.. 1998 H 4 b 5 b 4 ) 1 0 . . .... Bf B f 5 1 1 . N b d 2 ? ! (11.Bd3 Bg4 12.Nbd2 =; but White should investigate 11.c4! Re8 12.Nc3!) 1 1 . . . . N b d 7 1 2 . N b 3 (12.Nh4?! Bc2!) 1 2 . .. . . .Q . Q d 6 1 3 . c4 c4 N e 4 1 4 .B . B d 3 N x g 5 1 5 . Bx Bx f 5 N x f 3 + 1 6 . Q x f 3 N f 6 1 7 . g 4 ! ? g 6 1 8 . g 5 N h 5 1 9 . Bg Bg 4 N g 7 2 0 . Rf Rf e 1 R f e 8 2 1 . N d 2 B d 4 2 2 . Ra Ra b 1 R x e 1 + 2 3 . Rx Rx e 1 f 5 2 4 . g x f 6 Qx Qx f 6 2 5 . Q x f 6 B x f 6 2 6 . N e4 e 4 K f 7 2 7 . N c5 c5 R b 8 2 8 . B e 6 + N x e 6 2 9 . R x e 6 Bd Bd 4 3 0 . N b 3 = Hohensee--Stetson, Hohensee--St etson, Ventura 1971 1971,, but 0-1 in 46 moves. H 4 b 5 b 5 ) 1 0 . . .... Re Re 8 This move may be Black's best but I can find no illustrative ill ustrative games. White seems forced to play 11.Bd3 with chances for both sides. For example: 1 1 . B d 3 (Better than 11.



Bb5?! c6! 12.dxc6 [12.Re1? Bxf2+!] 12.... Nxc6! =+ or 11.Re1?! Qd6! [11....Bxf2+? 12.Kxf2 Ne4+ 13.Kf1! Nxg5 14.Bb5! Ne4 15. Bxe8 Qxe8 16.Qd4 ±] 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Bb5 Rxe1+ 14.Qxe1 Bd7 =+) 1 1 . . . . Q d 6 (11.... Bg4!?; 11....h6 12.Bh4 g5!? 13.Re1 Qd8 14. Rxe8+ Qxe8 15.Bg3 Nxd5! 16.Nbd2 Nc6 17. Ne4! with excellent compensation for the pawn) 1 2 . c 4 (12.Bxf6!? Qxf6 13.Qc2 g6 14. Nbd2 =) 1 2 . . . . N e 4 (12....Bg4 might transpose to Kreindl--Franz, Vienna 1998 above, but White has the option of developing Nc3!) 1 3 . B x e 4 R x e 4 when white can investigate 14.Nbd2 = or 14. Nc3!? Rxc4 15.Qd3 with unclear play. H 4 c ) 6 . K f 1 ! += This move is theoretically White's best, but it can be difficult to play over the board. White's strategy practically wins a pawn, but he generally must play either very carefully in an endgame or rather defensively in the middlegame, neither of which generally appeals to the average Urusov gambiteer. White's losses in this line, in fact, often result from overly aggressive attempts to seize the initiative. But Black has great difficulty proving compensation against best play. Players who enjoy some of the endgame positions typical of the Perreux Variation of the Two Knights Defense will feel right at home. H 4 c 1 ) 6 . . .. . . B g 4 ? 7 . Q x d 4 B x f 3 8 . g x f 3 O - O 9 . Bg Bg 5 N b d 7 1 0 . Rg Rg 1 ± H 4 c 2 ) 6 . . .. . . B c5 c5 ? ! 7 . Qe Q e 2 + ! B e 7 (7...Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Kxe7 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bf4 +=; 7...Kf8 8.Nbd2 Bg4 9.Nb3 b5! 10.Bxb5 Qxd5 11.Qc4! Qxc4+ 12.Bxc4 Bxf3 13.Nxc5! Bd5 14.Bd3 Nbd7 15.Nxd7+ Nxd7 16. Bf4 Rc8 17.Re1 Nc5 18.Be5 Nxd3 19.cxd3 Bxa2 20.Ra1 +=/±; 7.... Kf8!? +=) 8 . N x d 4 N x d 5 ! ? (8....O-O! 9.Nc3 +=) 9 . Q h 5 ! c 6 1 0 . N c 3 g 6 1 1 . Qe Q e 5 ! N f 6 (11....f6 12.Qe2 with the threat of Ne6 ±) 1 2 . B h 6 R g 8 1 3 . Rd Rd 1 ± Nbd7 14.Bxf7+ Kxf7 15.Qe6+ Ke8 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17. Qxg8+ Nf8 18.Bxf8 Bxf8 19.f3 Nf6 20.Re1+ Kd7 21.Qf7+ Kd6 22.b4 Be7 23.Ne6 Qh8 24.c4 Qe8 25.Rd1+ Ke5 26.f4+ Ke4 27.Re1+ Kd3 28.Nc5+ Kc3 29.Qxf6+ Bxf6 30.Rxe8 Kxc4 31.Ne4 Bd4 32.Rxc8 Rxc8 33.Nd6+ Kxb4 34.Nxc8 +H 4 c 3 ) 6 . .. . . .c .c 5 7 . Qe Q e 2 + K f 8 (7...Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Kxe7 9.c3 dxc3 10. Nxc3 += or 9.Bf4 Nbd7 10.d6+ Kf8 +=) 8 . c 3 d x c 3 9 . N x c 3 B g 4 (9...Bxc3 10.bxc3 Nxd5? 11.Ba3 Ne7 [11...Be6 12.Rd1 +-] 12.Rd1 Qa5 13.Bxc5 +-) 1 0 . N e 4 N b d 7 1 1 . a 3 B a5 a 5 1 2 . Bg Bg 5 += White's passed d-pawn is a lasting advantage. H 4 c 4 ) 6 . . .. . . OO- O 7 . Q x d 4 H 4 c 4 a ) 7 . . .. . . B f 5 8 . B b 3 c 5 9 . Qf Qf 4 B e 4 1 0 . a 3 c 4 1 1 . Bxc4 Bd6 12 .Q Qh h 4 ? (12.Qd2! += Burkett) 12....Qc7 13.Nbd2 Re8 14.b3 Bxc2 15.Bb2 Nbd7 1 6.g3 Ne4 17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18 .Q Qg g 4 g 6 0-1 Burkett--Bourgault, Correspondence 1999. 1999 . H 4 c 4 b ) 7 . .. . . .N .N b d 7 8 . B g 5 (8.Bd3 Be7 9.c4 b5 10.cxb5 Nb6 11.Nc3 Bb7 12.d6 cxd6 13.a4 Nbd5 14.Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Bg5 Be6 16.Qh4 h6 17.Bxh6 gxh6 18.Qxh6 Rc8 19. Ra3 Re8 20.Qg5+ Kf8 21.Qh6+ Kg8 1/2-1/2 Volkmann--



Penz, OST 1997 or 8....Bc5 9.Qh4 Be7 10.c4 Re8 11. Nc3 Nf8 12.Qd4 N8d7 13.Bc2 b6 14.h3 Bc5 15.Qd3 a6 16.Bg5 Be7 17.Re1 Bb7 18.Ne4 g6 19.h4 Nxe4 20.Qxe4 Bxg5 21.Qxe8+ Qxe8 22.Rxe8+ Rxe8 23.Nxg5 += Burkett--Sciarretta, Burkett--Sciarret ta, IECC 1996 1996)) 8 . . .. . . Bc Bc 5 9 . Q f 4 B d 6 1 0 . Q d 2 h 6 1 1 . B h 4 N b 6 1 2 . Bb Bb 3 B e 7 1 3 . N c 3 N f x d 5 1 4 . B x e 7 N x e 7 1 5 . Rd Rd 1 Q x d 2 1 6 . Rx Rx d 2 N g 6 1 7 . N b 5 B d 7 1 8 . N x c 7 R a d 8 1 9 . c 4 B c6 c6 2 0 . N d 5 B x d 5 2 1 . c x d 5 N e 7 2 2 . g 3 N e x d 5 2 3 . K g 2 N f 6 2 4 . Rh R h d 1 R x d 2 2 5 . Rx Rx d 2 Ne4 26.Re e2 2 Nd6 27.R Re e7 a5 2 8.a4 g6 2 9.Ne5 Kg7 3 0 . f 4 R e 8 3 1 . Rx Rx e 8 N x e 8 3 2 . B x f 7 N d 6 3 3 . B b 3 N e 4 3 4 . B c2 c 2 N c 5 3 5 . b 3 g 5 3 6 . N d 3 N x d 3 3 7 . Bx Bx d 3 N d 5 3 8 . Be B e 4 N e 3 + 3 9 . Kf K f 3 g x f 4 4 0 . Kx Kx f 4 N f 1 4 1 . B x b 7 N x h 2 4 2 . B a 6 h 5 4 3 . B e 2 Kh K h 6 4 4 . Kf K f 5 K g 7 4 5 . Kg Kg 5 K f 7 4 6 . Bx B x h 5 + K e 6 4 7 . Be B e 2 1-0 Lanzani--Bruno, Italian Championship, Arcidosso 1985. 1985. H 4 c 4 c ) 7 . . .. . . Re Re 8 8 . B g 5 N c 6 9 . Q h 4 N e 5 1 0 . N x e 5 R x e 5 1 1 . N c 3 Bx B x c 3 (11....Bf5 12.Bxf6 +=) 1 2 . b x c 3 (12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qg3+ Kh8 14.Qxc3 +=) 1 2 . . . . R e 4 ? (12....Bf5 +=) 1 3 . Qx Qx e 4 ! N x e 4 1 4 . Bx Bx d 8 N d 2 + 1 5 . K g 1 N x c 4 1 6 . Bx B x c 7 B f 5 1 7 . d 6 +- Re8 18.h3 Re2 19. Kh2 Bd7 20.Kg3 Re6 21.Rhe1 Rg6+ 22.Kh2 Bc6 23.f3 Nxd6 24.Bxd6 Rxd6 25.Rad1 Rxd1 26.Rxd1 Kf8 27.Re1 Bd5 28.Re5 Bxa2 29.Ra5 Bc4 30.Rxa7 Bd5 31.Kg3 Ke7 32.Kf4 Kf6 33.h4 h6 34.Ra5 Ke6 35.Rb5 Bc6 36.Rb6 Kd5 37.Rb4 Ke6 38.Ke3 f5 39.Kf4 g6 40.Rb6 Kf6 41. Rb4 g5+ 42.Kg3 f4+ 43.Kg4 Kg6 44.hxg5 hxg5 45.Rb6 Kf6 46.Kh5 Kf5 47.Rb4 Be8+ 48.Kh6 Bc6 49.Rc4 g4 50. Rc5+ Ke6 51.Rxc6+ bxc6 52.fxg4 1-0 Seubert--Thirion, Huy 1993. 1993. H4c4d) 7....b6 8.Bg5 Nbd7 9 .Q Qh h 4 ? (9.Nc3 +=; 9. . . .h .h 6 1 0 . B x h 6 ? g x h 6 1 1 . Q x h 6 Bb5! Bc5 10.Qa4 ±) 9 . .. (11.Bd3! =+) 1 1 . . . . N h 7 -+ 12.Bd3 Ndf6 13.Ng5 Ba6 14. c4 Nxg5 15.Qxg5+ Kh8 16.Qh6+ Kg8 17.g4 Re8 18.g5 Bxc4 19.Bxc4 Ng4 20.Qh4 Re4 21.Qg3 Rxc4 22.Nc3 Bxc3 23.bxc3 Qxd5 24.Rg1 Ne5 25.Rg2 Nf3 0-1 Laszlo Kiss-Schieder, Graz 1995. 1995. H 5 ) 5 . .. . . .Q .Q e7 e 7 + 6 . B e2 e 2 (6.Kf1!? +=) 6 . .. . . N x d 5 7 . 0 – 0 (7.Qxd4 Be6 8.0-0 Nc6 9.Bb5 Qd6 and now White should have played 10.Ng5 += in Wium-Beskow, Goteborg 1920) 1920 ) 7 . . . . N c 6 8 . B b 5 B e 6 9 .N . N x d 4 Q c5 c5 1 0 . B x c 6 + b x c 6 1 1 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 2 . Q Qh h 5 + K d 7 1 3 . B g 5 g 6 1 4 . Qf Qf 3 B d 6 1 5 . Q f 7 + K c8 c 8 1 6 . N d 2 ? (Better 16.Qxe6+ Kb7 17.Na3 ±) 1 6 . . ..Q Q x c2 c2 1 7 . Q x e 6 + K b 7 1 8 . N e 4 B f 4 1 9 . B x f 4 N x f 4 2 0 . Qe Qe 7 R ad a d 8 2 1 . N c5 c5 + K c8 c8 2 2 . N a 6 N d 5 2 3 . Q Qe e 6 + ? (23.Qa3! ±) 2 3 . .. . . .K . K b 7 ! 2 4 . Ra Ra c 1 N f 4 2 5 . Rx Rx c 2 N x e 6 2 6 . b 4 K x a 6 = 27.Rxc6+ Kb5 28.Rxe6 Rhe8 29. Rxe8 Rxe8 30.a3 Ka4 31.f4? (31.Ra1!? Kb3 32.Kf1 Kb2 33.Rd1 Kxa3 34.Rd7 Kxb4 35.Rxc7 a5 36.Rxh7 unclear) 31...Kxa3 32.Ra1+ Kxb4 33.Rxa7 c5! 34.Rxh7 c4 35.Rc7 c3 36.Kf2 Re4 37.Rb7+ Ka3 38.Kf3 Rc4 39.Rb1 c2 40.Re1 Rd4 41.Rc1 Kb2 42.Rxc2+ Kxc2–+ 43.g4 Kd3 44. h4 Rd5 45.f5 gxf5 46.g5 Rd4 47.h5 Rg4 48.g6 Kd4 49.g7 Rxg7 50.Kf4 Rh7 51.Kg5 f4 0–1 Corbin--Camilleri, Dubai Olympiad 1986. 1986.

Line I>>> I>>>


The Urusov Gambit - Line I - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4


s

I ) 4 . .. . . .. . . N x e 4 5 . Qx Qx d 4 I 1 ) 5....Nd6

I 2 ) 5....Nc5

I n d e x o f L in in e s I 3 ) 5....Qe7

I 4 ) 5....d5


Position after 5.Qxd4

B lack's Knight is attacked and will eventually need to retreat. The best move here is 5....Nf6 (covered in the following lines), but many players think it is bad form to retreat to the same square from whence you came and will therefore look for alternatives. Black's other retreats are inferior, however, because they interfere with development development and allow the White Queen to apply pressure to the pawn at g7. An interesting alternative, though, is 5....d5!?, where Black tries to turn the tables with a countergambit to speed his development. White probably does best then to play 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Nc3! transposing to Line K1. K1.


I 1 ) 5 . .. . . .N .N d 6 ? 6 . OO- O I 1 a ) 6 . .. . . .N .N x c 4 ? 7 .R . R e 1 + N e 3 ! (suggested by Massimo Della Valle. Urusov himself simply gives 7....Be7 8.Qxg7 Rf8 9.Bh6 +-) 8 . R x e 3 + (8.Bxe3!? f6! is less clear) 8 . . .. .. B e 7 9 . Q x g 7 R f 8 1 0 . N c 3 +- Massimo Della Valle. I 1 b ) 6 . .. . . .N .N c 6 7 . Re Re 1 + N e 7 8 . Bb Bb 3 f 6 9 . Q Qd d 5 g 5 1 0 . N x g 5 (10.Bf4! +-) 1 0 . . . . f x g 5 1 1 . B x g 5 h 6 1 2 . N c 3 Rh Rh 7 1 3 . Q Qg g8 hx g5 14 .Q Qx x h 7 1-0 Prokes--Zander, Vienna 1925. 1925. I 1 c ) 6 . . .. .. f 6 7 . Re Re 1 + B e 7 8 . Qg Qg 4 (8.Bb3 Nc6 9.Qg4 g6 10.Nc3 Nf7 11.Qc4 Nd6 12.Qf4 Nf7 13.Nd5 +=) 8 . . . . g 6 (8....Nxc4 9.Qxg7 Rf8 10.Bh6 Ne5 11.Nxe5 fxe5

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/I.html (1 of 3)28/09/06 07:11:04


12.Rxe5 d6 13.Qxf8+ Kd7 14.Qf5+ Ke8 15.Rxe7+ Qxe7 16.Qxc8+ Kf7 17.Nc3 1B f 4 N f 5 1 1 . N c3 c3 N c 6 1 2 . 0 Knorr-Schmidt, Correspondence 1989) 1989) 9 . B b 3 c 5 1 0 . Bf N d 5 Q a 5 1 3 . Bd B d 2 Q d 8 1 4 . Qx Q x f 5 ! R f 8 (14....gxf5 15.Nxf6+ Kf8 16.Bh6#) 1 5 . Footner--White,, Shropshire 1999. 1999. Q x f 6 1-0 Footner--White I 1 d ) 6 . .. . . .Q .Q f 6 ! 7 . R e1 e 1 + B e 7 8 . Qd Qd 3 h 6 (8....Nc6 9.Nc3! Qg6 10.Nd5! ±) 9 . N c 3 c 6 1 0 . Be B e 3 ! += Chernev. For example: 10....Nxc4 11.Qxc4 O-O 12.Bd4 Qd6 13. Rad1 Qb4 14.Qe2 Bd8 15.a3 ±. I 2 ) 5 . .. . . .N .N c 5 ?! ?! I 2 a ) 6 . N e5 e 5 ? ! N e 6 7 . O - O N c 6 ! (7....Nxd4? 8.Bxf7+ Ke7 9.Bg5+ Kd6 10.Nc4+ Kc6 11.Bxd8 Nxc2 12.Rc1 Nxa1 13.Ne5+ +- Urusov 13....Kb6 14.Rxc7 d6 15.Rc6 + Kb5 16.Nc3+ Kb4 17.a3# 1-0 Schlemm--Wrany, Vienna 1872) 1872) 8 . B x e 6 f x e 6 9 . N x c 6 b x c 6 1 0 . N d 2 Qf Q f 6 =+ van der Tak I 2 b ) 6 . Bg B g 5 ! f 6 (6....Nc6? 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qd5+; 6....Be7? 7.Qxg7) 7 . B e 3 c 6 (7....Ne6!?) 8 . N c 3 d 5 9 . OO- O - O Be Be 7 1 0 . Qh Qh 4 N b d 7 (10....Be6 11.Rhe1; 10....OO 11.Nxd5!) 1 1 . N x d 5 ! cx c x d 5 1 2 . Qh Qh 5 + g 6 (12....Kf8 13.Qxd5 Qe8 14.Rhe1 a6!? 15.Ng5 fxg5 16.Bxc5 Nxc5 17.Qf3+ Estrin) 1 3 . Q x d 5 N e 5 1 4 . Q x d 8 + B x d 8 1 5 . N x e 5 f x e 5 1 6 . B x c5 c 5 B g 5 + +- 17.Kb1 Bd7 18.Rhe1 O-O-O 19.Bxa7 Bc6 20.g3 Bf3 21.Rd3 e4 22.Rd5 Rxd5 23.Bxd5 Bd2 24.Rg1 g5 25.c4 g4 26.Kc2 Bg5 27.Re1 Re8 28.b4 h5 29.a4 h4 30.a5 hxg6 31.hxg6 Bd8 32.Bb6 Bxb6 33. axb6 Re7 34.Kc3 Kd8 35.Kd4 Rh7 36.Ra1 Rd7 37.Ra8+ Ke7 38.Ke5 e3 39.fxe3 Rd6 40.Re8+ Kd7 41.Rd8+ Kxd8 42.Kxd6 Kc8 43.e4 Kb8 44.Kd7 Ka8 45.e5 1-0 Estrin--Taimanov, Leningrad 1949. 1949. I 3 ) 5 . . .. .. Qe Qe 7 ! ? 6 . OO - O N c 6 7 . Q d 1 ! (The Queen should get away from attacks. Not as good are 7.Bxf7+? Kxf7 8.Qxe4 Qxe4 9.Ng5+ Kg6 10.Nxe4 Nd4! -+; 7.Qd5?! d6? [7....Nb4! =] 8. Re1 Be6 9.Qxe4 d5 10.Bxd5 O-O-O 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nc3 Rd6 13.Bf4 Rd7 14.Qxc6 Qb4 15. Nb5 Bd5 16.Re8+ Rd8 17.Qxc7# 1-0 Sostaks-Cernobrova, Marijampole 1996; 1996; or 7.Qd3?! Nb4 8.Qb3 d5 9.Bxd5 Be6!? [9....Nxd5 10.Qxd5 c6 11.Qd4 Nc5 12.Re1 Ne6 =] 10.Bxe6?! [10.c4! +=] 10....Qxe6 11.Qxe6+ fxe6 12.Na3 Bc5 13.Be3 Bxe3 14.fxe3 O-O = Werner-Meizinger, Karlsruhe, Baden-ch JS 2003, 0-1 in 60) 7 . . . . N e 5 (7....f5 8.Nc3! +=; 7....Qc5!? 8. Na3 += or 8.Qe2!? with at least a slight edge for White) 8 . B d 5 N x f 3 + 9 . Qx Qx f 3 N c 5 1 0 . Be Be 3 Q f 6 1 1 . Qx Qx f 6 g x f 6 1 2 . R Re e 1 +=/= and White had a slight but persistent edge in BarnardBishop, Correspondence 1997 .

1997) 7 . B x f 7 + I 4 ) 5 . .. . . .d .d 5 ! ? 6 .B . B x d 5 N f 6 (6....Nd6? 7.O-O ± Rahden-Schulz, Germany 1997) (White should probably avoid what follows by transposing to Line K1 with 7.Nc3! +=) 7 . . . . K x f 7 8 . Qx Q x d 8 B b 4 + ! 9 . Qd Qd 2 (9.Bd2 Rxd8 10.Bxb4 Nc6 11.Bc3?! [11.Bc5] 11....Re8+ = . . Re Re 8 + ! 1 0 . K f 1 (better may be 10.Kd1! Bxd2 11. Kempe-Iounoussov, Hiddenhau 1998) 1998) 9 . . .. Nbxd2 Nc6! 12.Re1 Bf5! 13.Rxe8 Rxe8 14.h3 h6! 15.Nf1! Rd8+ 16.Bd2 Be4 17.Ne1! += followed by Ng3 and White appears to be wriggling free of the bind; but whether or not he can win a pawn-up Bishops-of-opposite-co Bishops-of-opposite-color lor ending out of this position is another story) 1 0 . . . . B x d 2 1 1 . B x d 2 (better may be 11.Nbxd2 but it is difficult to find a convincing liberation plan after 11....Nc6! One idea is to create a strongpoint at d4 after 11.Nbxd2 Nc6 12.Nb3 [12.c3?! Bf5 13.Nb3 Bd3+ 14.Kg1 Re2! =+] but Black gets good play with 12....Bg4! [12....Bf5 13.Nbd4 Rad8 14.Be3 +=] 13.Nfd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 c5! =. Meanwhile, after 12.Ne1 Black has pressure on the queenside with 12....Nd4! or even 12....Rxe1+!? 13.Kxe1 Nd4! with at least equality) 1 1 . . . . B g 4 ! = (Black now has sufficient compensation for the pawn according to Estrin. My own analysis bears this out and suggests that White's position is actually much harder and much less fun to play than Black's. Not as strong is 11....Bf5 12. Na3 Nc6 as in Goeller-Ko Goeller-Kochln, chln, U.S. Amateur Teams East 1981, 1981, though even here White has lots of problems. That is why I recommend avoiding this whole line with 7.Nc3! += transposing to Line K1.) K1.) 1 2 . N a 3 N c 6 1 3 . N g 5 + K g 6 1 4 . f 3 R a d 8 1 5 . Rd R d 1 B f 5 1 6 . K f 2 ?! ?! (16. h4 =) 1 6 . . . . N d 4 ? (16....Rxd2+! 17.Rxd2 Kxg5 =+) 1 7 . B e 3 c 5 1 8 . c c3 3 ! += N d 5 1 9 . B x d 4 c x d 4 2 0 . Rx Rx d 4 N f 4 ? ! (20....Kxg5 21.Rhd1 Nxc3 22.bxc3 Rxd4 23.cxd4 +=) 2 1 . N e 4 B x e 4



1/2-1/2 Freeman--Bake Freeman--Baker, r, Brighton 1984, 1984, though White has good winning chances here after simply 22.fxe4 Rxd4 23.cxd4 Rxe4 24.Rd1 ± with a pawn-up ending. Line J>>> J>>>



The Urusov Gambit - Line J - 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! Nc6 7.Qh4


s

J ) 4 . . . .N .N x e 4 5 . Q Qx x d 4 N f 6 6 . B g 5 ?! ?! N c 6 7 . Q h 4 J1 ) 7....Qe7+

J2 ) 7....Bb4+

J3 ) 7....d5


P o s i t i o n a f t e r 6 . B g 5 ? ! N c 6 7 . Qh Qh 4

B lack's best retreat is clearly 5....Nf6, when 6.Bg5?! has long been the standard move. After 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! (6.O-O?! d5! =+) 6....Nc6 7.Qh4, Black normally transposes to he standard line with 7....Be7 8.Nc3. But Black has several ways to make White miserable. Best therefore is 6.Nc3!, covered in Line K and following.


J 1 ) 7 . .. . . .Q .Q e7 e 7 + ! ? puts an awkward question to White's King and points up one of the main reasons to prefer 6.Nc3, when Be3 can block Queen checks along the e-file without loss of time. J 2 ) 7 . .. . . .B .B b 4 + 8 . N c3 c 3 Q e 7 + 9 . K f 1 B x c 3 1 0 . b x c 3 d 6 1 1 . N d 4 B e6 e 6 ? ! (11....Nxd4) 1 2 . B b 5 K d 7 1 3 . N x c 6 ? ! b x c 6 1 4 . B x c 6 + ? K x c 6 1 5 . Qa Q a 4 + K b 7 1 6 . Rb R b 1 + K c8 c 8 1 7 . B x f 6 Q x f 6 -+ Steenstup--Pilgaard, Steenstup--Pilgaard, Copenhagen Copenhagen 1992. J 3 ) 7 . .. . . .d . d 5 ! 8 . B x f 6 (8.Bb5 Qe7+ 9.Kd1 Qd6 10.Re1+ Be7 =+ Dellenbach--Kervaire, Correspondence 1986, or 8.Bd3?! Bb4+!? 9.c3 Qe7+ 10.Be2 =+ Pilgaard--Christensen, Copenhagen 1989, or 8.Bd3?! Nb5! Tholefson--Torre, Dimock Theme Tournament 1924 .. g x f 6 9 . B b 3 (9.Be2 f5!? 10.Qh5 Qf6 11.Nc3 Be6 12.O-O-O d4 13.Nb5 O-O-O = ) 8 . . .. + Gneiss--Gretarsson, Velden 1996) 1996) 9 . . . . Q e 7 + (9....Be6 10.Nc3 Bb4 11.O-O-O Bxc3 12. bxc3 Qe7 13.Bxd5 O-O-O = Tartakower--Sho Tartakower--Shories, ries, Barmen 1905) 1905) 1 0 . K d 1 a 6 (10....Bd7!? 11. Bxc6 is similar) 1 1 . R Re e1 Be6 12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13 .Nd4 Kd7 14.f4 c5 15.Nf5 Qd8 16.Qh5 K c6 c 6 1 7 . N d 2 d 4 =+ 18.Ng3 Bd6?! 19.c4 Kb6 20.f5 Bd7 21.Nge4 Ba4+ 22.b3 Bc6 23.b4 Be5 24.Nxc5 d3 25.Rb1 Qd4 26.Qh3 Rad8 27.Re3 Bf4 28.Rxd3 Qf2 29.Kc2 Bxd2 30.Kb3 Rxd3+

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/J.html (1 of 2)28/09/06 07:11:12

The Urusov Gambit - Line J - 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! Nc6 7.Qh4

31.Nxd3 Qd4 32.Nb2 Re8 33.Nd1 Re4 34.c5+ Kb7 35.a3 Qc4+ 36.Kb2 Re2 0-1 Shtanchaev-Varavin, Russia 1996. 1996.

Line K>>> K>>>


http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/J.html (2 of 2)28/09/06 07:11:12

The Urusov Gambit - Line K - 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3


s

K ) 4 . . .. .. N x e 4 5 . Q x d 4 N f 6 6 . N c3 c3 ! K 1 ) 6....d5

K 2 ) 6....Be7

K 3 ) 6....Nc6

I n d e x o f L in in e s K 4 ) 6....Qe7+


P o si si t i o n a f t e r 6 . N c 3

L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5

Soren Galberg-Lund may have been the first to point out in print the importance of developing the Knight before the Bishop, but Frank Marshall and Carlos Torre had obviously figured this out by 1924. Even today, many masters reach the main lines via 6.Bg5?! and most published analysis does not discuss the importance of this move order, which avoids the problems with 6.Bg5?! Nc6 7.Qh4 d5! in line J. J.


A fter 6.Nc3 Black usually transposes to the generally recognized main lines with 6....Be7, but he can also play 6....Nc6 7.Qh4 Bb4 leading to unique positions which favor White. One line that White should be aware of is K3a K3a,, where Black plays 7....d5 before White can castle queenside, thus forcing exchanges. While White certainly retains some advantage in the K3a line, it would probably be difficult to exploit in high level competition. competition. The lines below all follow upon 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! K 1 ) 6 . .. . . .d .d 5 7 . B x d 5 ! ? (Better is simply 7.Nxd5! Nxd5 8.Bxd5 +=, but the Bishop capture is of interest due to transpositions from other lines.) K 1 a ) 7 . .. . . .N .N x d 5 8 . N x d 5 K 1 a 1 ) 8 . . .. . . c6 c6 ? 9 . Q e 5 + ± K 1 a 2 ) 8 . . .. . . B e6 e6 9 . c 4 c 6 1 0 . B g 5 K 1 a 2 a ) 1 0 . .. . . .Q . Q d 7 ? ! 1 1 . O – O– O – O ! c x d 5 (11...f6 12.Nxf6

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/K.html (1 of 5)28/09/06 07:11:22


+ gxf6 13.Qxf6 Bg7 14.Qf4 +-) 1 2 . c x d 5 Q c7 c7 + (12...f6 13.Rhe1 Nc6 14.Qe4 ±; 12...h6 13.Bf4 Qc8+ 14.Kb1 Bf5 + 15.Ka1 f6 16.Rc1 ±; 12...Qc8+!? 13.Kb1 Bf5+ 14. Ka1) 1 3 . K b 1 B f 5 + 1 4 . K a 1 f 6 1 5 . B x f 6 ! B c5 c 5 1 6 . Q a4 a4 + Qd 7 (16...Kf8 17.Be5 Qc8 18.Qf4 ±; 16...Bd7 17.Rhe1 + Kf7 18.Qc4! Bd6 [18...Kxf6 19.Qc3+ Kg6 20.Ne5+ +-] 19.Re7+ Kf8 20.Bxg7+ Kxe7 21.Qh4+ Kf7 22.Bxh8 Bf5 23.Nd4 +-) 1 7 . R Rh h e 1 + K f 8 1 8 . Qh Q h 4 K g 8 (18...Na6 19.d6 Nb4 20.Be7+ Ke8 21.Rd2 +-) 1 9 . B e7 e 7 N a 6 (19... Bb6 20.Ne5 Qe8 21.d6 ±) 2 0 . d 6 h 6 2 1 . N e 5 Qe Qe 6 2 2 . N d 3 Q f 7 2 3 . d 7 ± g5 24.Bxg5 hxg5 25.Qxg5+ Qg6 26. d8Q+ +K 1 a 2 b ) 1 0 . . ..Q Q a5 a 5 + 1 1 . N c 3 h 6 1 2 . B h 4 R g 8 (12...Nd7 e4 g 5 1 4 . N d 4 R g 6 1 5 . B g 3 N d 7 13.O-O-O +=) 1 3 . Q e4 1 6 . O - O += K 1 a 3 ) 8 . .. . . .N .N c 6 9 . Qe Q e 4 + B e 6 (9....Be7 10.Bf4 ±) 1 0 . c 4 ! (10.Nf4 +=) 1 0 . . . . B d 6 (10....Bb4+ 11.Nxb4 Nxb4 12.O-O O-O 13.Be3 +=; 10....Be7 11.Bf4 ±; 10....Nb4 11.Bg5 Qd7 12.Rd1 +-) 1 1 . O - O (11. Bg5!?) 1 1 . . . . Q d 7 (11....O-O? 12.Ng5!) 1 2 . B g 5 += K 1 b ) 7 . . .. . . B e7 e 7 8 . B f 4 c 6 9 . B c 4 (9.Bxf7+!?? Kxf7 10.Ng5+ Ke8 11.Qc4 Rf8 12. . . Qx Qx d 4 1 0 . N x d 4 O - O 1 1 . OO- O - O += Rd1 Qb6 13.O-O is unclear) 9 . . .. K 2 ) 6 . . .. . . B e7 e 7 7 . B g 5 d 5 (7....O-O 8.O-O-O d5 9.Nxd5 Nxd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Rhe1 Be6 12. Bxd5 Nc6 13.Bxc6 [13.Qa4!] 13....bxc6 14.Qc3 += Belle Computer--Herbst, USA 1984) 1984) K 2 a ) 8 . O - OO- O ! ?? ? ? d x c 4 (Black might as well take up the challenge. Both 8.... Nc6 9.Qh4 and 8....c6 9.Rhe1 transpose to lines L through N) 9 . Q e 3 K 2 a 1 ) 9 . . . . N b d 7 1 0 . B x f 6 g x f 6 1 1 . Rh Rh e 1 K f 8 ? (Best is probably 11....O-O 12.Qxe7 Qxe7 13.Rxe7 += and White has a solid edge in the ending; 11....c6 12.Nh4!) 1 2 . Qh Q h 6 + K g 8 1 3 . Rx Rx e 7 ! Q x e 7 1 4 . N d 5 + - Q d 8 1 5 .R . R e 1 ! N e5 e5 1 6 . N x f 6 + e t c . K 2 a 2 ) 9 . . . . N f d 7 1 0 . N d 5 ! N c 6 1 2 . Bx B x e 7 N x e 7 1 3 . R h e 1 or 1 0 . . . . f 6 1 1 . B f 4 += K 2 a 3 ) 9 . .. . . .B .B d 7 ! 1 0 . B x f 6 g x f 6 1 1 . N d 5 B e 6 (worse is 11....Kf8 12. Qh6+ Kg8 13.Rhe1 Be6 14.Nf6+ Bf6 15.Rd8+ Bd8 16.Nd4 when White has a strong attack) 1 2 . N x f 6 + B x f 6 1 3 .R .R x d 8 + K x d 8 1 4 . N g 5 ! and while Black has a theoretical material advantage, in practice White's position is much easier to play. K 2 b ) 8 . N x d 5 ! (8.Bxd5 c6 9.Bc4 +=) 8 . . . . N x d 5 (8....O-O 9.O-O-O Nxd5 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Rhe1 Be6 12.Bxd5 Nc6 13.Qa4 += Radboud de Roos) 9 . Q x d 5 ? ! (Better is 9.Qxg7! Bf6 10.Qxh8+ Bxh8 11.Bxd8 +-, and if 9....Rf8 10.O-O-O c6 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Ng5 threatening Nxh7 or pressure along the e-file according to Radboud de Roos) 9 . . .. .. Qx Qx d 5 1 0 . B x d 5 c 6 1 1 . B b 3 ? ! (11.Bc4 +=) 1 1 . . . . N d 7 1 2 . O - OO- O N c 5 1 3 . B c4 c 4 B x g 5 + 1 4 . N x g 5 O - O 1 5 . Rh R h e 1 (15.Nxf7 b5 16.Nh6+ Kh8 17.Nf7+ =) 1 5 . . .... h 6 1 6 . N e4 Gibbs--Littlewood, ood, Ilford e 4 N x e 4 1 7 . Rx Rx e 4 B e 6 = Gibbs--Littlew 1961.. The game is recorded as 1-0 even though Black has achieved equality at 1961 this point. Clearly White's play could be improved in several ways. K 3 ) 6 . . .. . . N c 6 7 . Qh Qh 4 K 3 a ) 7 . . .. . . d 5 +=



This advance is an attempt at easy equality. But despite the relatively balanced position, White retains a clear initiative and should gain the advantage with best play. 8 . N x d 5 N x d 5 (8...Bb4+ 9.c3 Nxd5 10.Qxd8+ Nxd8 11.Bxd5 Bc5 +=; 8... Be6 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.Qxf6 gxf6 11.Bb5 Rg8 12.Nd4 +=; 8...Be7 9.Bg5 Nxd5 10.0–0–0 Be6 11.Bxd5 Bxd5 12.c4 += transposes to Line L2) L2) 9 . Qx Qx d 8 + N x d 8 (9...Kxd8 10.Bxd5 Nb4 11.Bb3 Be6 12.Bg5+ Ke8 13.0–0–0 Bxb3 14.axb3 +=) 1 0 . B x d 5 B e 6 1 1 . B e4 e 4 B c 5 ! (11...f5 12.Bd3 Bd6 13.Nd4 0–0 14.Bd2 f4 15.Nxe6 Nxe6 16.f3 Rfe8 17.0–0–0 Rad8 18.Rhe1 Kf7 19.Bc4 g5 20.Re2 ±) 1 2 . 0 – 0 f 5 1 3 . B d 3 0 – 0 1 4 . Re Re 1 h 6 1 5 . Bf B f 4 c 6 1 6 . a 3 g 5 1 7 . Bc B c 7 g 4 1 8 . b 4 B b 6 1 9 . Bx Bx b 6 axb6 20 .Nd4 R Rff 6 2 1 . N x e 6 N x e 6 2 2 . Bx B x f 5 R x f 5 2 3 . Rx Rx e 6 + = K 3 b ) 7 . . .. . . N e 7 += Black plans to transfer his Knight to g6 to harrass White's Queen and provide another defender to the Kingside. In this line, Black is also able to play the c6 and d5 pawn formation. The main problems with the line, however, are that the Knight is vulnerable to attack at g6, perhaps by h4-h5, and the maneuver does not gain any time for the defense in the long run. K 3 b 1 ) 8 . N e 5 ? ! (White seeks to punish Black immediately. The Knight attacks f7 while preventing 8....Ng6, so the move has some logic. But White does better to complete his development before moving the same piece twice.) 8 . . . . d 5 9 . B g 5 ? ! (A rather desperate desperate try to justify the previous move. Better 9.Bd3 Nf5 10.Qf4 = but White does not seem to have gained anything here over the main line.) 9 . . . . N f 5 ! (Best. The line 9....dxc4? 10.Rd1! Nd7 11.Qxc4 Nxe5 12.Rxd8+ Kxd8 13.Qd5+ Nd7 14.Qxf7 leads to unclear play that should favor White, while 9....Qd6 10.O-O-O! Qxe5 11.Rhe1 yields White a strong attack) 1 0 . B b 5 + (10.Qf4 dxc4 11.Rd1 Bd6 -+; 10. .. .c .c 6 1 1 . Q a 4 B e 7 ! Bxf6 gxf6! 11.Qh5 fxe5 12.Bxd5 Qe7 -+) 1 0 . .. (Why should Black bother with 11....cxb5 12.Nxb5 Bc5 13.Nc7+ Kf8 14.Nxa8 Qe7 15.O-O-O) 1 2 . B x f 6 B x f 6 1 3 . B x c 6 + b x c 6 1 4 . Qx Qx c 6 + Kf8 15.Qxa8 Bxe5 -+ K 3 b 2 ) 8 . Bg Bg 5 ! (Simple development is best.) 8 . . .. . . N g 6 9 . Qd Qd 4 c 6 1 0 . OO- O - O B e 7 1 1 . h 4 ! (White points up the poor placement of Black's Knight at g6.) 1 1 . . . . d 5 1 2 . h 5 N f 8 1 3 . h 6 g 6 += 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Bb5+ Bd7 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Rhe1+ Ne6 18.Qxd5 O-O 19. Bxd7 Qb6 20.Qb3 Qxb3 21.axb3 Nc7 22.Rd6 Bh8 23.c3 a5 24.Kc2 Ra6 25.Rxa6 Nxa6 26.Bb5 Nc7 27.Bc4 Bf6 28.Rd1 Re8 29.Rd7 Re7 30.Rd6 Ne6 31.Bxe6 Rxe6 32.Rxe6 fxe6 33.Nd2 Bg5 34.Nc4 Bxh6 35.Nxa5 b6 36.Nc6 Kf7 37.b4 Kf6 38.Kd3 Bc1 39.Nd4 Bxb2 40.Kc2 1-0 Roobol--Dutreeuw, Amsterdam 2001. 2001. K 3 c ) 7 . . .. . . Bb B b 4 8 . OO- O Bx Bx c 3 9 . b x c 3 + = Black must surrender the two Bishops eventually or White will threaten Bg5 and Nd5. Now, though, White's dark squared Bishop becomes becomes a monster. K 3 c 1 ) 9 . . .. .. d 5 K 3 c 1 a ) 1 0 . B a3 a3 ! ? Black must play very precisely after this move, but he can achieve equality with careful play. Better, therefore, is 10.Rd1! below. K 3 c 1 a 1 ) 1 0 . .. . . .B .B e 6 1 1 . R a d 1 K3c1a1a) 11....Qd7 12.Bb5! +=



K 3 c 1 a 1 b ) 1 1 . . .... N e4 e4 1 2 . Q h 5 ! g 6 (12....Nf6 13.Qg5; 12.... Nxc3? 13.Bxd5! Nxd1 14.Bxe6 g6 15.Ne5! Qe7 [15....fxe6 16. Nxg6; 15....Nxe5 16.Qxe5; 15....gxh5? 16.Bxf7#] 16. Qh 6 Q f 6 (13.... Qxd1! +-) 1 3 . Qh Qd7 14.Bb5!) 1 4 . B x d 5 N x c 3 ! ? 1 5 . B x c 6 + b x c 6 1 6 . Rd Rd e 1 ! ? OOO - O 1 7 . Q e 3 += K 3 c 1 a 1 c ) 1 1 . . .... N d 7 ! 1 2 . Q Qx xd8 + N x d 8 (12....Rxd8 13.Bxd5 Bxd5 14.Rxd5 f6 15.Nd4 +=) 1 3 . B x d 5 B x d 5 1 4 . Rx Rx d 5 N e 6 1 5 . N g 5 +=/= K 3 c 1 a 2 ) 1 0 . . .... d x c 4 1 1 . Ra Ra d 1 N d 5 1 2 . R f e1 e 1 + B e 6 1 3 . Qx Qx c 4 K 3 c 1 a 2 a ) 1 3 . . .... N c e7 e7 1 4 . B x e 7 Q x e 7 1 5 . Rx Rx d 5 (15....c6 16.Rde5 O-O [16....O-O-O 17. Qa4 +=] 17.Qe4 +=) 1 5 . . . . O O 1 6 . Qe Qe 4 h 6 1 7 . N d 4 R a e 8 1 8 . R e5 e5 Q d 6 1 9 . N x e 6 R x e 6 20.Rxe6 Qxe6 21.Qxe6 fxe6 22.Rxe6 Rf5! = K 3 c 1 a 2 b ) 1 3 . . ..Q Qd7! 14.Qh4 b5! 15 .c c4 4 bxc4 16 .Q Qg g5 f6 1 7. Q x d 5 Q x d 5 1 8 . Rx Rx d 5 N e 5 ! 1 9 . N x e 5 Bx Bx d 5 2 0 . N g 6 + K f 7 2 1 . N x h 8 + R x h 8 2 2 . Re Re 7 + K g 6 23.f3 = K 3 c 1 b ) 1 0 . R d 1 ! OO - O (10....Qe7!? 11.a4!) 1 1 . B d 3 h 6 1 2 . Bx B x h 6 g x h 6 1 3 . Qx Qx h 6 B g 4 1 4 . h 3 B h 5 1 5 . N g 5 B x d 1 1 6 . Rx Rx d 1 N e 5 1 7 . Bh B h 7 + K h 8 1 8 . Bf Bf 5 + K g 8 1 9 . R d 4 Q e 7 2 0 . Rh Rh 4 N g 6 2 1 . B x g 6 Q e 1 + 2 2 . K h 2 Q e 5 + 2 3 . g 3 N g 4 + 2 4 . Rx Rx g 4 Q g 7 2 5 . Bx Bx f 7 + Rx f 7 2 6 . N x f 7 1995 . Q x g 4 2 7 . h x g 4 1-0 Burkett-Chessmaster 4000, 1995. K 3 c 2 ) 9 . . .. . . OO- O 1 0 . Bg Bg 5 ! Keres says here that White has a strong attack. Not 10.Bd3?! Ne7 11.Bg5 Ng6 12.Qg3 a5 =+ as in Marshall--Torre, New York 1924 . K 3 c 2 a ) 1 0 . .. .. .d .d 6 1 1 . Bd B d 3 h 6 1 2 . B x h 6 g x h 6 1 3 . Qx Qx h 6 Re 8 (13....Ne5 14.Nxe5 dxe5 15.Rad1 Qe7 16.Rfe1 Re8 17.Re3 Qe6 18.Rg3+ 1-0 Claudio--Paolo, Reggio 1996) 1 4 . N g 5 B e 6 1 5 . Ra Ra e 1 N e 5 1 6 . Bh Bh 7 + N x h 7 1 7 . Qx Qx h 7 + K f 8 1 8 . f 4 B x a 2 1 9 . Qh Q h 6 + K e7 e 7 2 0 . Nx Nx f 7 B x f 7 2 1 . f x e 5 K d 7 2 2 . R x f 7 + K c6 c6 2 3 . Q Qff 4 b 5 2 4 . c 4 Rx R x e 5 2 5 . Rx Rx e 5 d x e 5 2 6 . cx c x b 5 + K x b 5 2 7 . Qx Qx e 5 + c 5 2 8 .Q .Qb 2 + K a 5 2 9 . Qa Qa 1 + K b 6 3 0 . Rf Rf 6 + K b 7 3 1 . Qa Qa 6 + K b 8 3 2 . Qb Qb 5 + K c7 c7 3 3 . Q Qc c 6 + K b 8 3 4 . Rf Rf 1 1-0 Burkett--COMP CM4000, 1995.. 1995



K 3 c 2 b ) 1 0 . . .... h 6 1 1 . Bx B x h 6 ! g x h 6 1 2 . Qx Qx h 6 d 5 1 3 . R a d 1 ! B f 5 (13....Ng4 14.Qh5 Be6 15.Bd5 +-) 1 4 . N h 4 B h 7 1 5 . Rd Rd 3 ! K h 8 (15....Bd3 16.Bd3 Ne5 17.Nf5 Ne8 18.Ne7+ Qe7 19.Qh7#) 1 6 . R g 3 (16.f4!?) 1 6 . .. . . .R .R g 8 1 7 . B d 3 N e 4 ? (17....Ne5! 18.Rg8+ Kg8 19.f4 unclear) 1 8 . B e 4 d e 4 1 9 . N f 5 ! 1-0 Thompson--We Thompson--Weberg, berg, US Correspondence 1949 (19...Qf8 20.Qf6+ Rg7 21.Rg7; 19....Rg3 20.fg3 Qg8 21.Qf6+; 19....Rg3 20.fg3 Qf8 21. Qf6+ Kg8 22.Nh6+ Collins). K 4 ) 6 . . .. . . Qe Qe 7 + (A move that it will certainly drive White out of his preparation. Though the Queen should be poorly placed here, my analysis is not conclusive.) 7 . B e 3 K 4 a ) 7 . .. .. c c6 6 8 . 0 - 0 - 0 (8.0-0 d5 9.Bd3 Be6 10.Rae1 Nbd7 11.Ng5 Nc5 12.f4 unclear) 8 . . .. .. d 5 9 . Bg B g 5 ! ? (9.Bd3 Be6 10.Rhe1 Nbd7 11.Ng5 Nc5 12.f4 is unclear) K 4 a 1 ) 9 . .. . . h 6 ? 1 0 . Rh Rh e 1 B e 6 1 1 . B x d 5 ! c x d 5 1 2 . N x d 5 N c 6 ! 1 3 . B x f 6 (13.Qa4!? Nxd5 14.Bxe7 Bxe7 15.Nd4 Nb6 16.Qb5 Bc4 17.Qc5 ±) 1 3 . . ..N N x d 4 1 4 . Bx Bx e 7 N x f 3 1 5 . g x f 3 ± K 4 a 2 ) 9 . .. . . d x c 4 ?! ? ! 1 0 . N e 4 c 5 1 1 . Qe Qe 3 B e 6 1 2 . Q Qff 4 N b d 7 1 3 . N d 6 + K d 8 1 4 . Nx N x b 7 + K c8 c 8 (14...Ke8? 15.Qc7) 1 5 . N d 6 + K d 8 1 6 . N e5 e5 Qx d 6 1 7 . R Rx xd6 Bxd 6 18.Nxf7 + Bxf7 19 .Q Qx x d 6 R e 8 2 0 . Rd Rd 1 R e 7 21.Bxf6 gxf6 22 .Q Qx x f 6 += with an unusual balance of material that should favor White in the long run. K 4 a 3 ) 9 . . .. . . B e6 e 6 ! 1 0 . B d 3 (10.Bxd5?! cxd5 11.Nxd5 Bxd5 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 [or 12...gxf6 13.Qxd5 Bh6+ 14.Kb1 0-0 =+] 13.Qxd5 Be7 14. Qxb7 Qc6 =+) 1 0 . . . h 6 is unclear. K 4 b ) 7 . . .. . . N c 6 8 . Qh Qh 4 (White may do better to develop in an original way here, since this move allows an early exchange of Queens. Perhaps instead 8.Qf4 d6 9.0-0-0 Ne5! [9...Be6 10.Rhe1 +=] 10.Bb3 unclear. However, Black could play 6....Nc6 7.Qh4 Qe7+, in which case this line would be forced.) 8 . . . d 5 ! (8...d6?! 9.0-0-0 Be6 10.Bg5 0-0-0 11.Rhe1 Qd7 12.Bb5±) 9 . N x d 5 (9.Bxd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 Qxh4 11.Nxh4 Bd6 12.c4 Nb4=) 9 . .. . . N x d 5 1 0 . B x d 5 Qx Q x h 4 1 1 . B x c6 c 6 + ! (11. Nxh4 Nb4 12.Be4 Be7 13.c3 Bxh4 14.cxb4 0-0 15.0-0-0 Re8 16.Bf3 a6 17.Rhe1 b x c 6 1 2 . N x h 4 B d 6 1 3 . 0 - 0 - 0 B e 6 1 4 . Rh Rh e 1 += White has only the c6=) 1 1 . . ..b slightest advantage, not quite as good as K3a above.

Line L>>> L>>>



The Urusov Gambit - Line L - 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 9.O-O-O Be6


s

L ) 4 . . .. .. N x e 4 5 . Q x d 4 N f 6 6 . N c3 c3 B e 7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8 .Q Qh h4 d5 9 .O O-- O - O B e 6


L 1 ) 10.Rhe1

A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ...

L 2 ) 10.Nxd5!

Introduction

B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4 C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ E) 4.Nf3 d6 F) 4.Nf3 c5 G) 4.Nf3 Bc5 H) 4.Nf3 d5 I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ... J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ... P o si s i t i o n a f t e r 9 . O - O - O Be Be 6


M ost writers reject this line as dangerous for Black because the pawn at d5 is not well supported. But theory has only considered the L1 lines l ines following 10.Rhe1 O-O 11. Bd3 h6, where White appears only to have a forced draw since the attacks with g4 (see lines L1c2d and L1c3) probably only work at fast time controls. The truest challenge to Black's unstable center center pawn is the L2 line (10.Nxd5!), which was analyzed long ago by NM Victor Baja in an article in Chess Life but which has, to my knowledge, received no published practical tests. Even against the very best defense by Black, White has a clear positional superiority.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/L.html (1 of 5)28/09/06 07:11:38



T he lines below follow upon 1 . e 4 e 5 2 . Bc Bc 4 N f 6 3 . d 4 e x d 4 4 . N f 3 N x e 4 5 . Q x d 4 N f 6 6 . N c 3 B e 7 7 . B g 5 N c 6 (7....O-O?! 8.O-O-O h6? 9.Qh4 d6 10.Bxh6! gxh6 11.Qxh6 Nh7 12.h4 Nc6 13.Bd3 f5 14.Bc4+ Kh8 15.Ng5 1-0 Hausner--Szymcz Hausner--Szymczak, ak, Prague 1989) 1989) 8 . Qh Q h 4 d 5 (8.... h6 9.O-O-O O-O? 10.Bxh6 gxh6 11.Qxh6 d6 12.g4 Nxg4 13.Rdg1 Na5 14.Rxg4+ Bxg4 15. Rg1 Qd7 16.Bd3 Rfe8 17.Qh7+ Kf8 18.Qh8# Wendland--Markus Wendland--Markus,, Correspond Correspondence ence 1997 1997)) 9.OO-O Be6 . L1) 10.R Rh he1 L 1 a ) 1 0 . .. .. .Q . Q d 7 ? 1 1 . N x d 5 ! (Much stronger than 11 Bb5 O-O 12 Bd3 h6 13 Bxh6 gxh6 14 Qxh6 Bf5 15 Ne5 Nxe5 16 Rxe5 Ng4 17 Bxf5 Qxf5 18 Qxf8+ Bxf8 19 Rxf5 Bh6+ 20 Kb1 1-0 Zarske-Hoffmann, Zurich 1993) 1 1 . . . . N x d 5 (11.... Bxd5 12.Bxd5 Nxd5 13.Bxe7 Ncxe7 14.Rxd5!) 1 2 . Bx B x d 5 B x g 5 + 1 3 . N x g 5 +Goeller--Steffen, Westfield 1980. L 1 b ) 1 0 . . .. . . h 6 ? 1 1 . Bx B x f 6 ? ! (Can't White grab the d5 pawn at this point? 11. Bxd5! Nxd5 12.Rxd5 Bxd5 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Nxd5 O-O 15.Nxe7+ Kh8 16.Rd1 Qe8 17.Ne5 Qb5 18.Qh5 Qe8 19.Rd7 Rb8 20.g4 b5 21.g5 Rb6 22.g6 Rf6 23.gxf7 R6xf7 24.N5g6+ Kh7 25.Nxf8+ Rxf8 26.Qxe8 Rxe8 27.Kd2 +- Spagnuolo-. . .B . B x f 6 1 2 . Q h 5 B x c 3 ? (12....O-O! 13. Smith, E-mail Tournament 2000) 1 1 . .. c8 1 5 . Rx Rx c 6 ! g 6 1 6 . Rx Rx g 6 ! f x g 6 1 7 . Q x g 6 Nxd5 +=) 1 3 . R x e 6 + K f 8 1 4 . R x d 5 Q c8 Q e8 e 8 1 8 . R f 5 + K e 7 1 9 . Qe Qe 6 + K d 8 2 0 . Rd Rd 5 + Qd 7 2 1 . Q Qx x d 7 # Tereschenko-Rotlevi, St. Petersburg 1909. 1909. L 1 c ) 1 0 . . . ..O O-O

embarrassing, L 1 c1 c1 ) 1 1 . R Re e 3 ? h 6 1 2 . B d 3 B c5 c 5 ! (This is the most embarrassing, though equally good is 12....Re8! when the sacrifice at h6 fails because Black can play Bf8 for defense. Not 12....d4!? 13.Bxh6 dxe3 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Qg5+ Kh8 16.Qh6+ Kg8 = 17.Ng5? Qxd3! 18. Rxd3 exf2 =+ or 12....Nb4?! 13.Bxf6 Nxd3+ 14.Rexd3 Bxf6 15.Qh5 c6 16.g4 with some attacking chances for White.) 1 3 . B x f 6 B x e 3 + 1 4 . f x e 3 Q x f 6 -+ White has no real compensation for the exchange. L 1 c2 c2 ) 1 1 . B d 3 h 6 L 1 c 2 a ) 1 2 . Bx Bx h 6 ? ! N e4 e4 ! 1 3 . Q Qff 4 B d 6 ! (13....f5?! 14. Bxe4 Bd6 15.Qg5 Qxg5 16.Nxg5 Bf4+ 17.Kb1 Bxg5 18. Bxg5 dxe4 19.f3 +- Giertz--Potroc Giertz--Potrock, k, Correspo Correspondence ndence Q e 3 f 5 ! (14....Bc5 15.Qf4 Bd6 = Lasker) 1 5 . 1970)) 1 4 . Qe 1970 B g 5 Q d 7 1 6 . B b 5 Qf Q f 7 1 7 . Bx Bx c 6 b x c 6 1 8 . N x e 4 f x e 4 1 9 . N d 4 B d 7 2 0 . f 3 Ra R a e 8 2 1 . f x e 4 B g 4 2 2 . N x c 6 Rx Rx e 4 Degli-Eredi--Kotzem, zem, German 2 3 . Qd Q d 2 B x d 1 0-1 Degli-Eredi--Kot Correspondence 1998. 1998 . This line has been frequently played by computers and found to be generally good for Black. L 1 c 2 b ) 1 2 . Rx Rx e 6 (Keres) 1 2 . . . . f x e 6 (12....hxg5? 13. Nxg5 fxe6 14.Bh7+ Kh8 15.Bf5+ +- or 13....Nh5 14. Rxe7 +-) 1 3 . Bx B x h 6 g x h 6 (13....Nb4!?) 1 4 . Qg Qg 3 + K h 8 (14....Ng4!? 15.Qxg4+ Bg5+ 16.Kb1 Rxf3+ 17.gxf3 Kf7 18.Qh5+ Ke7 19.h4 Bf6 20.Qxh6 Qh8 was unclear in Kase--Junge, Correspondence 1983) 1983 ) 1 5 . Qg Qg 6 Q d 6 (15....Rf7! 16.Qf7 Qg8! = Forintos and Haag) 1 6 . Q h 6 + K g 8 1 7 . Qg Qg 6 + K h 8 = 18.Ng5?! Qxh2 and White's attack is doubtful according to Estrin.



L 1 c 2 c) c) 1 2 . K b 1 L 1 c 2 c 1 ) 1 2 . .. .. .N . N e 4 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Qxe4 g6 15.Bxh6 +- Galberg-Lund--Dotzel, Correspondence 1991. 1991 . L 1 c 2 c2 c 2 ) 1 2 . . .... h x g 5 ? ! 13.Nxg5 g6 (13.... Bd7 14.Nxd5! +-) 14.Qh6 Re8 15.Rxe6 Bf8 16.Rxe8 Qxe8 17.Nxd5 Bxh6 18.Nxf6+ Kg7 29.Nxe8+ Rxe8 20.Ne4 += Haas-Lautenbach, Correspondence 1995. 1995 . L 1 c 2 c 3 ) 1 2 . . .. .. Re Re 8 1 3 . g 4 ! see Strjbos-Zagema, NED 1997, 1997, in L1c3 below. Not 13. Bxf6? Bxf6 14.Qh5 Ne7 15.g4 Bxc3 16.bxc3 c5 17.g5 Qb6+ 18.Kc1 c4 19.Bf1 g6 0-1 Wallinger--Beutel, Correspondence 1991, when White's Queen is trapped. L 1 c 2 c 4 ) 1 2 . .. .. .Q . Q d 7 ? ! 1 3 . Bx Bx h 6 N e 4 1 4 . B g 5 Bx Bx g 5 1 5 . N x g 5 N x g 5 1 6 . Q Qx xg5 L 1 c 2 c 4 a ) 1 6 . . .. .. N e 7 1 7 . h 4 c 6 1 8 . g 4 R f e 8 1 9 . Rg Rg 1 f 6 2 0 . Qh 5 1-0 Shmelnicki--Eventov, USSR Correspondence 19551957.. 1957 L 1 c 2 c4 c 4 b ) 1 6 . . .... d 4 1 7 . N e 4 f 6 1 8 . Q h 4 Bf Bf 5 1 9 . B c 4 + Rf 7 2 0 . N c 5 Q d 6 2 1 . Qh Qh 5 g 6 2 2 . B x f 7 + K x f 7 2 3 . Qh Qh 7 + K f 8 2 4 .Q .Qh 8 Maiko-Kochet, + +- Maiko-Kochet, Dnepropetrovsk UKR 2002. L 1 c 2 c 5 ) 1 2 . .. .. .N . N e 8 1 3 . B x e 7 Qx Qx e 7 1 4 . Q x e 7 N x e 7 (Forintos and Haag) 1 5 . N d 4 N c 6 1 6 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 7 . Rx Rx e 6 R x f 2 1 8 . N x d 5 R x g 2 1 9 . B c4 c 4 ! K h 8 2 0 . Rd Rd e 1 N d 6 2 1 . N x c 7 N x c 4 ! (21....Rd8? 22.Bd3! Kg8 23.Bg6 1-0 Laes--Zitterio Laes--Zitterio,, Correspond Correspondence ence 1971-1972)) 2 2 . N a 8 Rh 1971-1972 R h 2 2 3 . N c7 c7 N d 2 2 4 . K c 1 N f 3 = Van der Tak. L 1 c 3 c6 c 6 ) 1 2 . . .... N d 7 ! 1 3 . B x e 7 Q x e 7 1 4 . Q x e 7 N x e 7 1 5 . N d 4 (15.Nb5 Rfc8 16.Nbd4 Nf8) 1 5 . . . . N c 5 (Forintos and Haag) 1 6 . b 4 ? ! (Estrin. White should instead try 16. f4!, but not 16.Bf1 a5 17.f4 c6 18.g4 Re8!? 19.f5 Bd7 20.h4 b5 21.Bh3 b4 =+) 1 6 . . . . N x d 3 1 7 . Rx Rx d 3 (17.cxd3?! Nc6! 18.Nxc6!? bxc6 19.d4 Rfb8 20.a3 a5 21.Na2 axb4 22. .. .N .N c 6 1 8 . axb4 c5! 23.dxc5 d4! -+) 1 7 . .. N x e 6 (18.Nxc6!?) 1 8 . .. .. .f . f x e 6 1 9 . Rx Rx e 6 N x b 4 2 0 . Rg Rg 3 R x f 2 = + L 1 c2 c 2 d ) 1 2 . g 4 ! ? N x g 4 1 3 . B x e 7 Q x e 7 1 4 . Q g 3 Qd Q d 6 ! is



unclear according to Forintos and Haag. Compare L1c3 below. L 1 c3 c 3 ) 1 1 . K b 1 ! ? Re 8 1 2 . B d 3 h 6 1 3 . g 4 (The attack with g4 seems White's best idea in the L line, and the main question is how best to set up this thrust. Not 13.Bxh6? gxh6 14.Qxh6 Bf8 =+ van der Tak) 1 3 . . . . B f 8 (13....hxg5!? 14.Nxg5 Bb4 is unclear according to van der Tak) 1 4 . N b 5 h x g 5 1 5 . Nx N x g 5 g 6 1 6 . Bx B x g 6 f x g 6 1 7 . N x e 6 Rx Rx e 6 1 8 . R x e 6 += B g 7 1 9 . g 5 N h 7 2 0 . Rx R x g 6 N f 8 2 1 . Rx Rx g 7 + ! K x g 7 2 2 . f 4 Q d 7 2 3 . N c3 c3 N e 7 2 4 . Q Qh h6+ Kg8 25.Ne4 Qf5 26.Ng3 Qe6 27. Qh 5 N f 5 2 8 . Q Qff 3 N x g 3 2 9 . h x g 3 R e8 e 8 3 0 . a 3 c 6 3 1 . Rh Rh 1 Q e 2 ? ! (31....Qe4) 3 2 . Q c3 c3 Q e 4 3 3 . Rh Rh 8 + K f 7 3 4 . Q Qff 6 # Strijbos--Zagema, Netherlands 1997. 1997. L2) 10.Nxd5! As Max Burkett points out, this move was first analyzed in the 1970s by San Francisco master Victor Baja, but it seems otherwise to have been completely ignored. Of course, 10. Bxd5! should work just as well, since both moves force central exchanges. 1 0 . . . . N x d 5 (Better than 10....Bxd5?! 11.Bxd5 Nxd5 12.c4 and the Knight at d5 is not as useful as the Bishop for the defense. For example, Black cannot play one of the better defenses, 12....Ncb4?, because White has 13.Bxe7! and Black cannot reply 13....Qxe7? 14. Rhe1! because he has no Bishop at d5 to cover e6; Black is therefore forced instead to play 13....Nxa2+ 14.Kb1 Nac3+ 15.bxc3 Nxc3+ 16.Kc2 Qxe7 17.Rhe1 Ne2 18.Qxe7+ Kxe7 19. Rxe2+ +-.) 1 1 . B x d 5 B x d 5 (11....Bxg5+ 12.Nxg5 Bxd5 13.c4 transposes to L2d below) 1 2 . c4 L 2 a ) 1 2 . . .. .. f 6 ? 1 3 . Rx Rx d 5 ! Q c8 c8 1 4 . B d 2 (to prevent 14....Nb4) 1 4 . . . . O - O (14... g6 15.Bc3!? 0–0 16.Rhd1 Qe6 17.Re1 Qf7 18.Rd7 ±; 14...Qe6 15.Re1 Qf7 16. Nd4 0–0 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Rd7 +-) 1 5 . R h 5 ! (White also has the advantage after simply 15.Rd1, but what Urusov gambiteer could resist this direct assault on the King?) 1 5 . . . . h 6 (15....f5 16.Ng5! h6 [16...Bxg5 17.Bxg5 h6 18.Bxh6 gxh6 19. Rxh6 +-] 17.Rxh6! gxh6 18.Qxh6 Rf7 [18....Bxg5 19.Qxg5+ Kf7 20.Re1 followed by Bc3 +-] 19.Nxf7 Kxf7 20.Qh7+ Ke6 [20....Ke8 21.Rd1!] 21.Re1+ Kd7 22.Rd1 Qg8 23.Bg5+ Ke6 24.Re1+ Kd7 25.Qxf5+ Ke8 26.Qc5 Qf7 27.Re3 Rd8 [27...Kd7 28.Bxe7 Nxe7 29.Qd4+ Ke8 30.Qh8+ Qf8 31.Qe5 Rd8 32.Qxc7 ±] 28.Bxe7 Nxe7 29.Qxc7 Rd7 30.Qc8+ Rd8 31.Qc5 b6 32.Qc6+ Rd7 33.Qa8+ Rd8 34.Qe4 Rc8 35.b3 Qf6 ± and White has excellent winning chances with four pawns versus a Knight) 1 6 . B x h 6 ! (16.Qe4 Qe8 17.Qg4 Kh7 18.Rb5 +=) 1 6 . . . g x h 6 1 7 . R x h 6 Q f 5 (17...Bd6 18.Rg6+ Kf7 19.Rxf6+ Ke8 20.Re1+ Kd7 21.Qg4 Re 1 B d 6 (18...Rad8 19.g4 Qf4+ 20.Kb1 + Kd8 22.Rxf8+ Bxf8 23.Qg5+ +-) 1 8 . Re e4 N e 5 2 0 . Ne5 21.Rh8+ Kf7 22.Nxe5+ fxe5 23.Rh7+ Kg6 24.Rxe7+-) 1 9 . R e4 N x e 5 B x e 5 2 1 . Rh R h 5 Q e 6 2 2 . Rh Rh 8 + K f 7 2 3 . Rh Rh 7 + K e 8 2 4 . f 4 +L2b) 12....Bxf3?! 13.R Rx x d 8 + R x d 8 1 4 . B x e 7 Rd Rd 4 (14....Nxe7? 15.Re1 +-) 1 5 . Q g 3 Rx Rx c 4 + 1 6 . K d 2 K x e 7 1 7 . Re R e 1 + B e 4 1 8 . Qh Qh 4 + K d 7 1 9 . Rx Rx e 4 R x e 4 2 0 . Q x e 4 ± Baja L 2 c ) 1 2 . .. . . .N . N b 4 ! ? 1 3 . Rh Rh e 1 f 6 1 4 . B x f 6 ! (14.cxd5!? Qd6 15.Be3 unclear) 1 4 . . . . g x f 6 1 5 . a 3 ! c6 c 6 (15....Nc6 16.Rxd5 Qc8 17.Qxf6 Rf8 18.Qh4 += Baja; 15....O-O 16.axb4 c6 17.cxd5 cxd5 18.Kb1 += Baja) 1 6 . a x b 4 (16.Qh5+!?) 1 6 . . . . O - O 1 7 . c x d 5 c x d 5 1 8 . K b 1 Q d 6 1 9 . Qh Q h 5 ! ? += (White can attack by Nf3-Nd4-Nf5 and Re3-h3 according to Baja. More precise may be 19.Nd4! Qxb4 20.Re3! Kh8 21. Qh5 ± according to Fritz). L 2 d ) 1 2 . . .. . . Bx Bx g 5 + ! 1 3 . N Nx xg5 L 2 d 1 ) 1 3 . . .... N e7 e 7 ? ! 1 4 . N x h 7 ! Baja 1 4 . . ..ff 5 1 5 . c x d 5 Q d 6 1 6 . Rh Rh e 1 Q h 6 + 1 7 . Qx Qx h 6 g x h 6 1 8 . N f 6 + K f 7 1 9 .N . N h 5 ± and the Knight will soon be strongly posted at f4, protecting the pawns at d5 and g2,



when White is a solid pawn to the good with the better position. L 2 d 2 ) 1 3 . . .... N b 4 ? ?!! 1 4 . c cx x d 5 ! Q d 6 (14....Nxa2+? 15.Kb1 h6 16.Qa4 + Kf8 17.Ne4 +-; 14....a5 15.Qh5 g6 16.Qh6 Qf6 17.Rhe1+ Kd7 18. Ne4 Qb6 19.a3 Na6 20.d6 +-) 1 5 . Rd Rd 4 ! c 5 (15....a5 16.a3 Na6 17. Re1+ Kf8 18.Rf4! +-) 1 6 . d x c 6 Qx Q x c 6 + 1 7 . K b 1 and either Black's King gets slaughtered in the middle of the board or he loses his Knight after 17....Qc2+ 18.Ka1 O-O 19.Rxb4 +-.

transposes) 1 4 . Rh L 2 d 3 ) 1 3 . . .... h 6 ! (13...Qf6! 14.Rxd5 h6 transposes) Rh e 1 + K f 8 15.R Rx x d 5 Q f 6 ! (15...Qc8 16.Nf3 Kg8 17.Ne5 ±) 1 6 . R e 3 ! (The immediate 16.Nf3 Qxh4 17.Nxh4 += is similar to the main line below. Weaker is 16.f4!? which would work well after 16....Kg8?! [16....g6?? 17.Nh7+] 17.Nf3 Qxh4 18.Nxh4 ±, but Black has instead 16....Nb4! causing trouble.) 1 6 . . . . K g 8 ! (Black must force the exchange of Queens or lose his own. Not as good is 16...Nb4 17. Rf3 Nxd5 [17....Qg6 18.Rdf5 f6 19.Ne6+ Kf7 20.Nxg7 +-] 18.Rxf6 Nxf6 19.Ne4 Ne8 [19....Nxe4 20.Qxe4 ±] 20.Qh3 ± Baja, e.g.: 20.... Kg8 21.Qd7! ± or 20...Rd8 21.Qa3+ ±) 1 7 . N f3 f3 Q x h 4 1 8 . N x h 4 g 6 1 9 . R d 7 (Worth considering is 19.Nf3 Kg7 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.Rdxe5 . . .R . R c8 c8 2 0 . b 4 ! N b 8 2 1 . Rd Rd 5 K g 7 2 2 . N f 3 += material is +=) 1 9 . .. equal, but White has a positional edge.

Line M>>> M>>>



The Urusov Gambit - Line M - 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O


s

M ) 4 . . .. . . N x e 4 5 . Q x d 4 N f 6 6 . N c 3 B e7 e7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9 .O O-- O - O M 1 ) 9...Bf5

M 2 ) 9...O-O

M 3 ) 9...Qd7

I n d e x o f Li Li n e s Introduction

M 4 ) 9...Be6


P o s i t i o n a f t e r 9 . OO- O - O


T he 8....d6 line does not challenge the center and thus allows White to develop a piece attack against Black's King (whether it remains in the center or castles on either wing). Moves like 9....Bf5?!, 9....O-O?! and 9....Qd7?! all allow White an immediate attacking plan. Black's best is therefore 9....Be6,, seeking to block the open e-file before White plays 9....Be6 Re1 and to chase or exchange the White Bishop at c4. After 9....Be6 White can choose between avoiding the exchange of Bishops by 10.Bb5?! and 10.Bd3?! or correctly accepting it with 10.Bxe6 and 10.Rhe1!

The move 10.Bb5?! generally forces a draw or a rather lifelessly equal position unless Black carefully returns the pawn for a positional edge. And extensive practice suggests that Black can equalize with careful play against 10.Bd3?! and should even have an edge after the new move 10.... Ng4! White's safest alternative is 10.Bxe6, seeking to recover the pawn quickly or gain an attack, but Black can likely equalize if he immediately surrenders surrenders the pawn by 10....fxe6 11.Rhe1 Qd7 12.Qc4 O-O-O! The logical developing move 10.Rhe1! poses Black the most difficult problems and provides White excellent chances of exploiting his initiative after 10....Bxc4 11.Qxc4 O-O, when several moves and plans present themselves.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/M.html (1 of 17)28/09/06 07:11:54



M 1 ) 9 . . .. .. B f 5 ? ! 1 0 . Rh R h e 1 O - O +=/± The Bishop is poorly placed at f5 where it stands unprotected and allows White to gain time for a kingside attack. This position is often reached via 9....O-O?! 10.Rhe1?! Bf5?! because White misses the stronger attack with 10.Bd3! -- see M2 below.

M1a) 11.Bd3?

M1b) 11.Re2!?

M1c) 11.Nd4?!

M1d) 11.Rxe7!?

M1e) 11.Qf4

M1f) 11.g4!

M 1 a ) 1 1 . B d 3 ? Bg B g 6 12.Bxg6 hxg6 13.Re3 Nc6 14.Rde1 Qd7 =+ Wienand--Rapp, Marbach/Fasanenhof, Marbach/Fas anenhof, 1989 1989.. M1b) 11.R Re e2 Qd7 12.R Ra a e 1 Ra R a e 8 1 3 . B b 5 B d 8 1 4 . N d 4 Rx R x e 2 1 5 . Rx Rx e 2 h 6 1 6 . Bd2 Bg6 17 .Q Qg g 3 a 6 1 8 . B a 4 b 5 1 9 . N x c 6 Qx Q x c 6 2 0 . Bb Bb 3 unclear Bucan-Moeckel, Bad Woerishofen 1992 . M1c) 11 .Nd4? ?!! N x d 4 1 2 . Rx Rx d 4 c 6 ? ! (12....h6! 13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.Qxh6 Nh7! is better for Black) 1 3 . g 4 B g 6 1 4 . f 4 h 6 1 5 . B x h 6 g x h 6 (15....Ne4 16.g5! ± ) 1 6 . Q x h 6 d 5 1 7 . f 5 N d 7 and now White should have won immediately by 18.Rxe7! Qxe7 19.fxg6 fxg6 20.Nxd5! +- in Goeller--Whitfie Goeller--Whitfield, ld, Westfield 1983 .

(Tartakower's move, which likely inspired a similar try by Torre. M 1 d ) 1 1 . Rx Rx e 7 ! ? (Tartakower's Müller and Voigt write that "This stretches it," meaning that it is hard to believe that such a romantic sacrifice can succeed against best defense. But my own analysis suggests that the idea has a lot of merit if properly followed up. Of course, White has easier ways to get an advantage against Black's weak 9.... Bf5?! which is why this is not the main line. A lot can be learned from the stem game that is useful in i n understanding the important exchange-sac exchange-sac motif which is so central to the latent tactics of many positions in the M-line generally.) 1 1 . . . . N x e 7 (Müller and Voigt note that 11....Qxe7? 12.Re1! h6 [12....Qd8 13.Nd5] 13. Bxh6 Be6 14.Bg5 gives White a strong attack) 1 2 . B x f 6 g x f 6 1 3 . Re Re 1 ? ! (This seems a mistake, though it is not noted by Müller and Voigt. The more direct 13. g4! += or even 13.Qxf6!? would improve here as indicated in my notes to the stem game.) 1 3 . . .... N g 6 1 4 . Qh Qh 6 c 6 1 5 . g 4 B x g 4 1 6 . R Rg g1 d5 17.Bd3 Bxf3 1 8. B x g 6 f x g 6 1 9 . Rx R x g 6 + K f 7 ? (Black tries too hard to win. A draw by perpetual check was the correct result after 19....hxg6 20.Qxg6+ Kh8 21.Qh6+ Kg8 =) 2 0 . R g 7 + K e 6 2 1 . Qe Qe 3 + B e 4 2 2 . Nx Nx e 4 d x e 4 2 3 . Q Qx x e 4 + K d 6 2 4 . c 4 f 5 2 5 . Qd Qd 4 + K e 6 2 6 . Qe Qe 3 + K f 6 2 7 . Qc Q c 3 + K e 6 2 8 . Qe Qe 3 + K f 6 2 9 . Qc Q c 3 + K e 6 3 0 . f 4 Qf Qf 6 3 1 . Q e 3 + K d 6 3 2 . c5 c 5 + K d 5 3 3 . Rd Rd 7 + K c4 c4 3 4 . Q b 3 + K x c5 c 5 3 5 . Qa Q a 3 + K b 6 3 6 . Qb Qb 4 + . K a 6 3 7 . Qx Qx b 7 + K a 5 3 8 . Rd Rd 3 1-0 Tartakower--Shoosmith, Ostende 1907 M 1 e ) 1 1 . Qf Qf 4 (The "book" move: White plans to use the Bishop at f5 to gain time for a pawn assault on the kingside.) 1 1 . . . . B g 6 ? ! (Probably better is 11....Qd7 to slow up White's plan and keep open options for the Bishop, though after 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nd5 Bd8, White would be doing well.) 1 2 . g 4 N a 5 ? ! (Black wants to exchange off White's Bishop at c4 to reduce forces, but the Knight seems misplaced here. Better might be 12....a6 followed by 13....b5 or 12....a5 with the idea of 13....Nb4 to begin a counter-attack counter-attack against White's King.) 1 3 . B d 3 Q d 7 1 4 . B x f 6 (This reduces the defenders around Black's King and gains a strong outpost for the Knight at d5, but a better plan might have been to seek a strong outpost for the other Knight with 14.Nh4 or 14.Nd4 with the idea of 15.Nf5 followed by h4-h5) 1 4 . . .... Bx B x f 6 1 5 . N d 5 B d 8 1 6 . B f 5 ! B x f 5 (If Black does not exchange now, White will eventually compel him with h4-h5, opening up lines for attack) 1 7 . g x f 5 f 6 (This weakens the e6 square, but Black must prevent 18.f6! Driving back the Knight with 17....c6 weakens the d-pawn and Black cannot play 17....c6 18.Ne3 d5? because of 19.b4! winning the Knight or 18....b5!? 19.f6! Bxf6 20.Rxd6! with the powerful threat of Rxf6!) 1 8 . h 4 (The immediate 18.Nd4, with the idea of Ne6 followed by doubling Rooks on the g-file, seems more



thematic, but White is actually rewarded for his patient development development of the kingside attack because Black soon weakens his queenside, allowing the Knight a . . .b . b 5 1 9 . N d 4 ! N c 4 2 0 . Qe Qe 4 R c 8 (see diagram different avenue of invasion.) 1 8 . .. below) 2 1 . N c 6 ! ± Ne5 22.Nxa7 Ra8 23.Nb6 cxb6 24.Qxa8 Qxf5 25.Qd5+ Kh8 26. Qxd6 Qf4+ 27.Kb1 1-0 Keidanski--Laske Keidanski--Lasker, r, Berlin 1891 1891.. M 1 f ) 1 1 . g 4 ! (This appears to be a more direct method of exploiting the Bishop's placement at f5 to initiate a pawn-storm on the Black king) 1 1 . . . . B g 6 (11.... Bxg4? 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Qxg4 ± or 11....Bd7? 12.Bd3! ± with a winning attack) 1 2 . Q g 3 ± with the idea of h4-h5 -->.

The diagram shows a key moment from KeidanskiLasker,, when it is White to move after 20....Rc8. Lasker Lasker is hoping to develop a counterattack on the Queen's wing, beginning with c5 perhaps, but Keidanski demonstrates demonstrates that White's centralized pieces allow him to control the entire board. With 21.Nc6! he switches his attack from the Kingside and center to the Queenside. The Knight is immune, since 21....Qxc6?? 22.Ne7+ wins the Queen. After 21....Ne5 (to prevent 22.Ne7+ winning the exchange) 22.Nxa7 Ra8 (22....Rb8 23. f4!) 23.Nb6! White won the exchange and the game. P o si s i t i o n a f t e r 2 0 . . . .R .R c8 c8 .

M 2 ) 9 . . .. .. OO- O ?! ?! 1 0 . B d 3 ! ± Castling is premature here since it allows White to initiate an immediate attack against which there is no satisfactory defense. Also playable for White, if not as strong, is 10.Rhe1, when play will transpose to M1 or M4 depending on whether Black plays 10....Bf5 or 10....Be6. M 2 a ) 1 0 . .. . . .g .g 6 1 1 . Rh Rh e 1 B e 6 1 2 . N e 4 N x e 4 1 3 . Rx Rx e 4 B x g 5 + 1 4 . N x g 5 h 5 1 5 . Kokholm--Christensen, ensen, Denmark 1993 1993.. g 4 (15.Rxe6!?) 1 5 . .. . . .K .K g 7 ? 1 6 . Rx Rx e 6 1-0 Kokholm--Christ M 2 b ) 1 0 . . .... h 6 1 1 . B x h 6 ! (11.Rhe1 hxg5 12.Nxg5 g6 13.Nd5 Kg7 14.Rxe7 Nxe7 15.Nxf6 Rh8 16.Qd4 Kf8 17.Ngh7+ Rxh7 18.Nxh7+ Kg8 19.Nf6+ Kf8 20.Re1 Be6 21.Nh7+ Kg8 22.Nf6+ Kf8 23.h4 Nc6 24.Qf4 Kg7 25.Ne4 Ne5 26.Re3 Nxd3+ 27. Rxd3 Bf5 28.Ng5 f6 29.Qxf5 gxf5 30.Ne6+ Kg6 31.Nxd8 Rxd8 32.Kd2 += Qx h 6 N e 5 Zahorbensky--Vavra, CZR 1997) 1 1 . . . . g x h 6 (11....Ng4 12.Bg5) 1 2 . Qx (12....Nb4?! 13.Ng5 Nxd3+ 14.Rxd3 Bf5 15.Rg3 Bg6 16.Ne6! 1-0 Nejstadt-Amateur, Exhibition 1950) 1950) 1 3 . N x e5 e 5 d x e 5 1 4 . Qg Q g 5 + K h 8 1 5 . Bf B f 5 Q e 8 1 6 . Rd Rd 3 +- Nejstadt. M 3 ) 9 . . .. .. Qd Qd 7 ? ! Black's plan is to return the pawn in order to quickly exchange Queens with Qg4. I include this move because I was recently surprised by it in a friendly game. 1 0 . R h e 1 (Perhaps 10.h3!? is the simplest way to point up the problems with Black's plan which puts the Queen on an awkward and unproductive square.) 1 0 . . . . 0 – 0 ! (Better than my friend's 10...Qg4!? 11.Bxf6 [11.Nb5!?] 11...gxf6 12.Qxf6 Rf8 [12...0–0?! 13.Rxe7! Nxe7 14.Rd4!‚ Qxg2 15.Ng5 Be6 16. Bxe6 fxe6 17.Qxe6+ Kh8 18.Qh6 +-] 13.Nd5! [I played 13.Bb5!? Be6 14.Bxc6+!? bxc6 15. Qh6 Qxg2 16.Qe3 and eventually developed a winning attack on Black's King stuck in the center of the board] 13...Be6 14.Nxc7+ Kd7 15.Bxe6+ fxe6 16.Qxe6+ Qxe6 17.Nxe6 +- with a clear two-pawn advantage, the better pieces, and the better pawns. Also ineffective is 10... Kf8?! 11.Rxe7! [11.h3!?] 11...Nxe7 12.Bxf6 Nf5 [or 12...Ng6 13.Ne5 etc.] 13.Ne5 [13.Bxg7 Rx e 7 ! ? (A less complicated road +!?] 13...Nxh4 14.Nxd7+ Bxd7 15.Bxh4 ±) 1 1 . B d 3 h 6 1 2 . Rx



to advantage follows 12.Bxh6! Qg4 13.Bg5 Qxh4 14.Nxh4 Bd8 15.f4 +=) 1 2 . . ..h hxg 5 13.Nxg5 Q g 4 1 4 . Re Re 4 Q x h 4 1 5 . Rx Rx h 4 R e8 e 8 1 6 . N h 7 N g 4 1 7 . N d 5 N x f 2 1 8 . N x c7 c7 N x d 1 1 9 . N x e 8 N e 3 2 0 . N x d 6 N x g 2 2 1 . R e4 e 4 ! ? K x h 7 2 2 . Re Re 8 ! ? g 6 2 3 . N x f 7 ! N f 4 2 4 . N d 6 N x d 3 + 2 5 . c x d 3 N b 4 26.Kd2 Nxa2 27.R Rx x c 8 R x c 8 2 8 . N x c 8 and White should have a decisive edge in a complex ending. See M3.pgn. M3.pgn.

M 4 ) 9 . . .. .. B e6 e 6 ! =/+= White now has four standard alternatives, alternatives, but none has yet proven in practice to yield much more than an equal game against best defense. It is worth knowing the ideas behind all of these lines to some extent in order to better understand the motifs and transpositions in the main line with 10.Rhe1! The safest alternative is 10.Bxe6, which yields at least a very slight advantage even if Black is smart enough to return his extra pawn by 10....fxe6 11.Rhe1 Qd7 12.Qc4 O-O-O! 13.Qxe6 Qxe6 14.Rxe6 with approximate equality.

M4a) 10.Bb5?!

M4b) 10.Bd3?!

M4c) 10.Bxe6

M4d) 10.Rhe1!

M 4 a ) 1 0 . B b 5 ?! ? ! =+ This move will likely force a draw in most over the board play. With best defense, defense, however, Black can obtain a positional advantage after returning the pawn with 10....h6! 11.Nd4! O-O! =+. M 4 a 1 ) 1 0 . .. . . .a .a 6 ? ! (A critical loss of time that gives White good attacking chances against the King in the center unless Black plays B x c 6 + b x c 6 1 2 . N d 4 (12.Ne5? Nd5 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 accurately.) 1 1 . Bx 14.Qc4 Qg5+ 15.Rd2 Ne7 16.Nxf7 Qxd2+ 0-1 Gazic-Hajnal, Budapest 2001) 1 2 . . . . N d 5 (No better was 12....Qd7 13.Rhe1 O-O 14.Ne4 +=/ =) 1 3 . N e 4 h 6 (Perhaps 13....Bxg5+ 14.Nxg5 Qf6! when White can consider 15.Rhe1 or 15.g3! with unclear play.) 1 4 . B x e 7 (14.Nxe6!? fxe6 15.Qh5+ is less clear) 1 4 . .. . . .Q . Q x e 7 1 5 . Qg Qg 3 K d 7 ? ! (The King is too exposed in the center of the board, though there was also no escape in 15....O-O? 16.Nxc6! Qd7 17.Rxd5! Qxc6 [17....f5 18.Nc5 Qxc6 19.Nxe6 gives White a strong attack while 17....Bxd5? 18.Nf6+ wins the Queen] 18.Nf6+ Kh8 19.Rh5! and Black must surrender considerable material to stop the threat of Qg5! forcing mate. But a better defense was certainly 15....Bd7! 16.Rhe1 O-O 17.c4 Nb6 18.c5 dxc5 19.Nb3 with complex play and probably equal chances.) 1 6 . R h e 1 R a e8 e 8 1 7 . f 4 (More direct was 17.c4! Nb6 18.c5 Nd5 19.Qa3) 1 7 . . . . K c 8 ? ! (17....g6 or 17....c5!? are better tries at defense) 1 8 . Q a 3 ! + - Nb4 19.Nxe6 Qxe6 20.Qxb4 Qxa2 21.Nc3 Qa1+ 22.Kd2 c5 23.Qb3 Qa5 24.Qxf7 Ref8 25.Qe6+ Kb8 26.g3 d5 27.Kc1 d4 28.Nb1 Rf6 29.Qc4 1-0 Boschett Boschetti--Schulte, i--Schulte, Lugano 1985 1985.. M 4 a 2 ) 1 0 . .. . . .O .O - O (Obviously not 10....Qd7? 11.Ne5! ± and White has a critical tempo on M3b1 below. Also of interest, though, is 10....Nd7 11.Rhe1 h6 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Nd5!? [13.Qg3 0–0 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Nd4 Nc5 16.Nxc6 Qd7 17.Nd4=] 13...Qd8 14.Qa4 0–0 15.Bxc6 Nc5 16.Qh4 bxc6 17. Qxd8 Raxd8 18.Ne7+ Kh7 19.Nxc6 Rde8 =) M4a2a) 11.R Rh h e 1 ? ! Re Re 8 1 2 . N d 4 N x d 4 1 3 . Rx Rx d 4 c 6 1 4 . B d 3 g 6 1 5 . N e 4 N x e 4 1 6 . Bx Bx e 7 Q x e 7 1 7 . Q Qx xe4 Qg5+ 1 8 . f 4 Q h 4 1 9 . g 3 Q x h 2 2 0 . Qf Q f 3 B d 5 2 1 . Be Be 4 B x e 4 2 2 . R d x e 4 R x e 4 2 3 . R x e 4 Q g 1 + -+ Rice--Phillips, Hastings 1995.. 1995



M 4 a 2 b ) 1 1 . Bd Bd 3 ! M 3 a 2 b 1 ) 1 1 . . .... h 6 1 2 . Bx Bx h 6 ! g x h 6 1 3 . Q x h 6 R e 8 1 4 . Qg Qg 5 + K f 8 1 5 . Qh Qh 6 + ! = perpetual check M 3 a 2 b 2 ) 1 1 . .. .. .g . g 6 1 2 . Rh Rh e 1 ! N h 5 ! (12....a6 13.Bc4! += or 12....Re8 13.Bb5! +=) 1 3 . g 4 ! (13.Be4!? Bxg5+ 14.Qxg5 unclear) 1 3 . . . . B x g 5 + 1 4 .N . N x g 5 h 6 1 5 . gx gx h 5 Q x g 5 + 1 6 . Q x g 5 h x g 5 1 7 . h x g 6 N e 5 1 8 .g .g x f 7 + Rx f 7 1 9 . Rg Rg 1 R g 7 ! 2 0 . B e4 e4 = M 4 a 3 ) 1 0 . . .... h 6 ! This careful move order avoids the likely draw following 10....O-O 11. Bd3!, for if now 11.Bd3?! then Black has an important tempo on lines in M4b below and can play 11....a6, 11....Nd7, or 11....Ng4 to advantage. M4a3a) 11.R Rh h e 1 ? ! OO- O 1 2 . Bx Bx h 6 g x h 6 1 3 . Q Qx xh6 Nh7! = + 1 4 . h 4 Re R e 8 1 5 . Bd B d 3 N f 8 1 6 . Ne Ne 4 N b 4 1 7 . N g 3 B f 6 18.Nh5 Bh8 19.Ng5 Nxd3+ 19.R Rx x d 3 B f 5 and White's attack failed in Nilsson-Wik, Correspondence 1991. 1991. M 4 a 3 b ) 1 1 . Nd Nd 4 ! M 4 a 3 b 1 ) 1 1 . . ..Q Qd7 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Bxf6 c x b 5 (13...Bxf6?! 14.Qe4 +=) 1 4 . B x e 7 Q x e 7 1 5 . Qx Qx e 7 + K x e 7 1 6 . N x b 5 = M 4 a 3 b 2 ) 1 1 . . .... Bd B d 7 1 2 . N x c6 c6 b x c 6 1 3 . B x f 6 Bxf6 14 .Q Qe e 4 + Q e7 e 7 1 5 . Bx Bx c 6 Q x e 4 1 6 . B x d 7 + ! Kx Kx d 7 1 7 . N x e 4 = M 4 a 3 b 3 ) 1 1 . . .... N d 5 1 2 . B x e 7 Q x e 7 (12.... Ndxe7?! 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Qg4 += or 13. Rhe1! +=) 1 3 . Q g 3 N x c 3 1 4 . Qx Qx c 3 Q g 5 + 1 5 . K b 1 OO- O 1 6 . B x c 6 b x c 6 1 7 . Q x c 6 = M 4 a 3 b 4 ) 1 1 . . .... N d 7 1 2 . B x e 7 Qx Qx e 7 1 3 . Q x e 7 + N x e 7 (13....Kxe7 14.Bxc6 +=) 1 4 . R h e 1 (14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Rhe1 e5 [15....c6?! 16.Rxd6 followed by R6e6 +=] 16.Bxd7+ Kxd7 17.Rxe5 =) 1 4 . . . . a 6 (14....Bg4? 15. Nd5! +- or 14....O-O-O 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16. Rxe6 +=) 1 5 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 6 . Rx Rx e 6 a x b 5 1 7 . N d 5 K d 8 1 8 . R x e 7 c6 c 6 ! ? 1 9 . Rx Rx d 7 + K x d 7 2 0 . N b 6 + K c7 c 7 2 1 . Nx N x a 8 + R x a 8 2 2 . Re Re 1 K d 7 2 3 . a3 a3 = M 4 a 3 b 5 ) 1 1 . . .... O O-- O ! 1 2 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 3 . Bd Bd 2 (13.Bxh6? gxh6 14.Qxh6 Rf7! 15.Rd3 Rh7! a 6 1 4 . Bx B x c 6 b x c 6 1 5 . R h e 1 and +) 1 3 . . . ..a White should recover his pawn with excellent chances of equalizing. For example: 15.... Qd7 (15.....e5!? 16.Qc4+ d5 17.Qxc6 is unclear) 16.Qg3 Kh8 17.Qe3 e5 18.f4 Nd5! 19.Nxd5 cxd5 20.fxe5 dxe5 21.Qxe5 Bf6! =/



=+ and while White has recovered the pawn, Black retains a positional advantage due to his center pawn, half-open b-file, and control of the long diagonal.

M 4 b ) 1 0 . B d 3 ?! ?! = + The "classical" method and until recently the "book" move: White retreats his Bishop to avoid exchanges and awaits signs of weakness in the defense. This move has always struck me as rather artificial and a waste of time, which goes against the entire logic of the Urusov which is all about gaining time in exchange for material. The position is quite balanced, though, and most games in this line have ended in a draw. Black has at least five playable methods of meeting 10. Bd3, all of which seem to equalize or gain an edge. But best may be a move not discussed by theory at all: 10....Ng4!, which is a slightly better version of 10.... Nd7 and should be at least slightly better for Black. The alternatives explored below are:

M4b1) 10...Qd7?!

M4b2) 10...h6

M4b4) 10...Nd7

M4b5) 10...Ng4!

M4b3) 10...a6

M 4 b 1 ) 1 0 . . .. . . Qd Qd 7 ? ! This long-standard move allows White to continue his initiative, though his attack should probably only bring a draw against careful defense. 11.Bb5 Immediately exploiting the Queen's position. Keres suggested 11. Rhe1!? as an interesting alternative. 11....O-O Less promising appear to be 11....Kf8!? or 11....O-O-O? 12.Qa4 a6 [13....Nd5 14.Rxd5! Bxg5+ 15.Rxg5 hxg5 16.Nd4 +- Mortensen-Wesche, Correspondence 1994] 1994 ] 13.Bxa6! bxa6 14.Qxa6+ Kb8 15. Nb5 +- Keres or 12.Ne5 Qe8 13.Nc6 bc6 14.Ba6+ Kd7 15.Na4 +Tartakower. M 4 b 1 a ) 1 2 . N e5 e5 M 4 b 1 a 1 ) 1 2 . .. .. .Q . Q c8 c8 1 3 . N x c 6 b x c 6 1 4 . Bx Bx c 6 M 4 b 1 a 1 a ) 1 4 . . .... h 6 1 5 . B x h 6 ! ? (15.Bd2 Rb8 16.Qa4 Ng4 17. Rdf1 [17.Be1 Bg5+ 18.Kb1 Bf6 19.b3 Nf2 20.Bf2 Bc3 21.Qa7 Bf5 1/2-1/2 Nejstadt--Burlayev, Moscow 1958 22.Bd4 += Harding] 17....Bf6 18.f4! +Estrin) 1 5 . . . . g x h 6 1 6 . Q x h 6 N g 4 1 7 . Q f 4 Rb Rb 8 1 8 . R d 3 Qd Qd 8 1 9 . h 4 B x h 4 2 0 . N e 4 f 5 2 1 . Bd Bd 5 B x d 5 2 2 . Rx Rx d 5 B f 6 2 3 . Rx Rx f 5 B x b 2 + 2 4 . Kd K d 2 N x f 2 2 5 . Qx Qx f 2 B g 7 2 6 . Qf Q f 3 d 5 2 7 . N g 5 Qd Qd 6 2 8 . Q x d 5 + Q x d 5 + 2 9 . Rx Rx d 5 R f 2 + 3 0 . K d 3 1/2-1/2 Lemieux--Gelin, Correspondence 1988. 1988 .



M 4 b 1 a 1 b ) 1 4 . . .... Rb Rb 8 1 5 . N e 4 Q a 6 ! (15....Qd8 16.Rd3 Kh8? 17. Nxf6 gxf6 18.Be4 1-0 Matrisch-Ninkovic, Correspondence 1973) 1973) 1 6 . N x f 6 + B x f 6 1 7 .B .B x f 6 g x f 6 1 8 . B e4 e 4 R f e 8 1 9 . a 3 Q b 5 1/21/2 Daubenfeld--Dieckmann, Correspondence 1988) 1988 ) . M 4 b 1 a 2 ) 1 2 . . .... Q Qe e 8 1 3 . N x c6 c 6 b x c 6 1 4 . Bd Bd 3 h 6 1 5 . f 4 N d 5 ! (15....hxg5? 16.fxg5 1-0 Griffith--MacDonald, Correspondence 1924) 1924) 1 6 . N x d 5 B x g 5 1 7 . f x g 5 B x d 5 1 8 . c 4 (18. gxh6 Qe3+ 19.Rd2 Qxh6 20.Qxh6 gxh6 21. c4 Be6 22.Be4 Bd7 =+ Knorr--Langheld, Correspondence 1990) 1990 ) 1 8 . . .... Q Qe e3+ 19.Kb1 B e 6 2 0 . g 6 R f e 8 2 1 . Rh Rh e 1 Q g 5 2 2 . Qe Qe 4 f x g 6 2 3 . Qx Q x c 6 B f 7 1/2-1/2 Hohm--Lassahn, Correspondence 1990. 1990 . M 4 b 1 b ) 1 2 . N d 4 a6 a 6 (12....h6 13.Bxh6 gxh6 [13....Ng4!? 15.Bg5 Bxg5+ 16.Qxg5 Nxf2 17.Bh7+ Kxh7 18.Qh4+ Kg8 19.Qxf2 Nxd4 20.Rxd4 = Moston--Coleman, Correspondence 1997] 1997 ] 14.Qh6 Ng4 15.Qh5 +-; 12.... Bf5? 13.Nxf5 Qxf5 14.Bd3 +-) 1 3 . B d 3 N e 5 (13....h6!? and if 14.Bxh6 Ng4! Hooper) 1 4 . f 4 N x d 3 + 1 5 . Rx Rx d 3 c 5 (15....Bf5 16.Re3 Rae8 17.Rxe7 Rxe7 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19. Nd5! +- Tartakower; 15....h6 16.Bxh6 Ng4 17.Bg5 f6 18. Nxe6 Qxe8 19.Re1 Qd7 20.Rh3 fxg5 21.Qh7+ Kf7 22.Qh5 + Kg8 23.fxg5 Qf5 24.Qh8+ 1/2-1/2 Stock--Thiem, Correspondence 1988) 1988 ) 1 6 . R Rg g3 Kh8 17 .Nf3 Ng8 18. B e 7 Qe Qe 7 1 9 . N g 5 N h 6 2 0 . R Re e 1 Q d 7 2 1 . Rg Rg e 3 R f e 8 2 2 . N c e4 e 4 B f 5 2 3 . N f 6 g f 6 2 4 . Qh Qh 6 B g 6 2 5 . N h 7 B h 7 2 6 . R g 3 Rx Rx e 1 + 2 7 . K d 2 Re R e 2 + ! 2 8 . K d 1 Re R e 1 + 1/2-1/2 Mieses--Rubinstein, Mieses--Rubins tein, Breslau 1912. 1912.

In the position from Mieses-Rubinstein Mieses-Rubinstein,, White has sacrificed a Rook and a piece to bring about a position where Black cannot directly prevent mate, since it is threatened by both 28.Qg7# and 28.Qxf6#. But Rubinstein discovers an indirect defense: a perpetual check with 27....Re2+! 28. Kd1 Re1+. The Rook is immune on both squares since its capture allows Black to organize a defense with Qe6+ and Rg8, with a winning material advantage. And the King dare not venture to the third rank since he is mated of course after 27....Re2+ 28.Kc3? Rxc2+ 29.Kb3 Qb5+ etc. A delightful conclusion to a very hard fought game. P os o s i t i o n a f t e r 2 6 . Rg Rg 3 R x e 1 + 2 7 . K d 2 .

M 4 b 2 ) 1 0 . . .... h 6 1 1 . Rh Rh e 1 Q d 7 ? ! (Better 11....a6! =) 1 2 . B b 5 O - O - O



(12....O-O 13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.Qxh6 +- Degli--Eg, Correspondence 1995)) 1 3 . Qa 1995 Qa 4 N d 5 (13....hxg5 14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16. Rxd4 Bf6 17.Rb4 a6 18.h3 Nb6 19.Rxb6 cxb6 20.Ne4 +- GalbergLund--Frederiksen, Correspondence 1994; 1994; 13....Ng8 14.Be3 Bg4 15. Ne5 1-0 Dellenbach--Scheu, Correspondence 1988; 1988; 13....Kb8 14.Nd4 hxg5 15.Nxc6+ bxc6 16.Bxc6 Qc8 17.Qb5+ 1-0 Tornow--Richter, Correspondence 1988) 1988 ) 1 4 . R Rx x d 5 ! B x g 5 + (14....hxg5 15.Nd4 Bxd5 16.Nxd5 Bf6 17.Bxc6 1-0 Uschold--Wallinger, Correspondence 1985) 1985) 15.R Rx xg5 h xg5 1 6.Nd4 R Rd d g 8 1 7 . N x c6 c 6 b x c 6 1 8 . Bx B x c 6 Q e7 e7 1 9 . 1973-1974 . Q x a 7 1-0 Svensson--Tolksdorf, Correspondence 1973-1974. M 4 b 3 ) 1 0 . . .. . . a 6 1 1 . Rh R h e 1 Q d 7 (11....h6!? Keres 12.Kb1!? Qd7 13. Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Bxg5 15.Nxg5 Qe7!? 16.Qh5 O-O! 17.f4 unclear) M 4 d 3 a ) 1 2 . Qa Qa 4 ? ! h 6 1 3 . B h 4 N a 7 1 4 . R x e 6 ? f x e 6 1 5 . B g 6 + K d 8 1 6 . Q b 3 N c6 c6 1 7 . Q Qx x b 7 R a 7 1 8 . Q b 3 K c8 c8 1 9 . B f 7 d 5 (19....Nd8? 20.Ne5!) 2 0 . R e 1 N d 8 2 1 . N e 5 Qd Qd 6 2 2 . Q a4 a 4 R b 7 2 3 . a3 a 3 R f 8 2 4 . Bg Bg 6 Q b 6 2 5 . b 3 B d 6 2 6 . B d 3 B x e 5 0-1 Wawrowski--Johansson, Correspondence 1986.. 1986 M 4 d 3 b ) 1 2 . N e4 e 4 N x e 4 1 3 . B x e 4 (13.Qxe4?! d5 14.Qh4 h6 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Bf5 Qxh4 17.Nxh4 O-O 18.Rxe6 fxe6 19.Bxe6+ Kh7 20.Bf5+ g6 21.Bxg6+ Kg7 22.Rxd5 Rad8 23.Rxd8 Nxd8 24.Bf5 Nf7 and now Galberg-Lund suggests 25.Ng6! = instead of 25.f3 in Zwisler--Pilgaard, Correspondence 1993) 1993 ) 1 3 . . .... O O-- O - O 1 4 . Bx Bx c 6 B x g 5 + 1 5 . N x g 5 (15.Qxg5!?) 1 5 . .. . . .Q .Q x c 6 1 6 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 7 . Q g 4 = Hooper. M 4 b 4 ) 1 0 . . .... N d 7 Harding writes: "Instead of the normal 10...Qd7, Black immediately proposes piece exchanges to reduce White's temporary initiative. By avoiding premature castling and pawn moves like ...h6 or ...a6, Black loses no time and gives White no targets to attack." An even better way of achieving the same goal might be 10....Ng4! which prevents 11.Qg3 and therefore forces exchanges by 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Qg3 OO-O =+. 1 1 . Q g 3 ! (11 Rhe1 Nde5 12 Bxe7 Nxd3+! =+ Harding) 1 1 . . . . N d e 5 1 2 . B x e 7 Q x e 7 (12....Nxd3+!?) 1 3 . N x e 5 N x e 5

Ivanov/Kalinichenko M 4 b 4 a ) 1 4 . Qx Q x g 7 O - OO- O = Ivanov/Kalinichenko M 4 b 4 b ) 1 4 . Bb B b 5 + c 6 1 5 . f 4 N g 6 1 6 . Bd B d 3 f 5 1 7 . Bx Bx f 5 B x f 5 1 8 . Rh Rh e 1 N e 5 1 9 . N e 4 ! ? (19.fxe5 d5 20.Rd2 O-O = + Ivanov/Kalinichenko) Ivanov/Kalinichenko) 1 9 . . . ..O O - OO- O 2 0 . N d 2 R h e 8 2 1 . f x e 5 d 5 (21....dxe5 22.Nc4 with counterplay notes van der Tak. This line l ine looks about equal, though Harding thinks otherwise. otherwise. See PGN) PGN) 2 2 . Qf Qf 2 B g 4 2 3 . N f 3 K b 8 2 4 . R d 3 Rf R f 8 2 5 . Q g 3 B f 5 2 6 . R d 2 K a 8 ? ! 2 7 . Qg Qg 5 Q x g 5 2 8 . N x g 5 R d e 8 2 9 . e6 e 6 h 6 3 0 . e7 e 7 R f 6 3 1 . N f 3 R e 6 3 2 . Rx Rx e 6 Bxe6 33 .c c4 4 K b 8 (33....Re7 34.Re2 Re8 35.Nd4 Bd7 36. Rxe8 Bxe8 37.cxd5 cxd5 38.Nf5 += van der Tak) 3 4 . Nd4 Bd7 35 .c cx x d 5 c x d 5 3 6 . N c2 c2 R x e 7 3 7 . Rx R x d 5 = with an eventual draw in Schulz-Reiners, Correspo Correspondence ndence 1995.. See PGN 1995



M 4 d 4 c ) 1 4 . B e 4 ! ? Q f 6 1 5 . B x b 7 R b 8 1 6 . Bd Bd 5 O - O 1 7 . Rhe1 R Rff e 8 1 8 . B x e 6 f x e 6 1 9 . R e4 e 4 R f 8 2 0 . f 3 N d 7 = 21. Qh4 Qf7 22.Rdd4 d5 23.Rf4 Nf6 24.Ra4 e5 25.Rfb4 Rxb4 26.Qxb4 Qg6 27.b3 Qxg2 28.Kb2 d4 29.Qc4+ Kh8 30. Nb5 Qxf3 31.Qxc7 d3 32.Qd6 Nd5 33.cxd3 Rf6 34.Qb8+ Rf8 35.Qd6 Rf6 36.Qd8+ Rf8 1/2-1/2 Max Zavanelli – T. D. Harding, ICCF 50 years Official Jubilee Tournament 2002.. For a very detailed analysis of this game, see 2002 Harding's remarks in Kibitzer 83. 83. M 4 b 5 ) 1 0 . . .... N g 4 ! which prevents 11.Qg3 and therefore forces exchanges by 1 1 . Bx B x e 7 Q x e 7 1 2 . Q g 3 O - OO- O =+ (Harding notes that 12....Qf6!? or 12....O-O might also be considered). This seems a refutation of the entire classical way of playing the Urusov with artificial Bishop maneuvers following f ollowing 10.Bd3?! M 4 c ) 1 0 . Bx B x e 6 ! ? +=/= This move, which is not discussed by theory, allows White to quickly recover his pawn or develop an attack. But if Black immediately surrenders surrenders the pawn, before incurring weaknesses in its defense, he will be able to equalize completely. 10....fxe6 11.Rhe1 M 4 c 1 ) 1 1 . .. . . .e .e 5 ? ! 1 2 . Q c4 c 4 ! ? (White can simply snatch back his pawn here with 12.Nxe5! += with a slight edge, since Black should not risk 12....Nxe5 13.Rxe5 dxe5?! 14.Rxd8+ Rxd8 15.Qa4+ when White's strong initiative and better position give him the edge despite the rough material balance. Instead Naim tries to get more out of the position by first weakening Black's position, but this may be riskier.) 1 2 . .. . . .N . N d 7 1 3 . h 4 ! ? h 6 (13....Nb6!? 14.Qb3!) 1 4 . B x e 7 N x e 7 ? (necessary is 14....Qxe7! 15.Nd5 Nb6! = and Black is ok) 1 5 . N b 5 ! N c 6 1 6 . Qe Q e 6 + N e 7 1 7 . R x d 6 ! Q c8 c8 1 8 . N x e 5 N x e 5 1 9 . Rx Rx e 5 Q x e 6 20.R Rd d x e 6 O - O 2 1 . Rx Rx e 7 R x f 2 2 2 . Re Re 2 R f 1 + 2 3 . K d 2 R d 8 + 2 4 . K c3 c3 a 6 2 5 . N x c7 c 7 R f 7 2 6 . Rx Rx f 7 K x f 7 2 7 . N e 6 +- Naim--Verducci, Correspondence 1992. 1992 . M 4 c 2 ) 1 1 . .. . . .Q .Q d 7 ! (Developing the Queen and preparing to castle. Black has more trouble castling after 11....Qc8?! 12.Qc4! [12.Ne4!? e5?! 13.Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Qxf6 = Hausner-Satransky, Rakovnik 2001, but Black should have played instead 12....O-O! =+] 12....e5 [12....O-O 13.Rxe6! Kh8 14.Rde1 Qd7 15.Qe2 +=] 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Nd5 Bd8 15.Nf4! followed by Ne6 with more than enough pressure to win back the pawn and keep the initiative) 1 2 . Q c 4 ! (Müller and Voigt simply leave things here with the symbol for "with compensation." The alternative 12.Bxf6?! Bxf6 13.Qc4 [or perhaps first 13.Qh5+!? g6 14.Qg4] at least equalizes after 13....Kf7 14.Ne4 h6 15.Nc5! or 14....d5 15.Neg5+ or 13....O-O-O 14.Qxe6 Qxe6 15. Rxe6 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Rhe8 17.Rde1 Kd7 18.Rxe8 Rxe8 19.Rxe8 Kxe8 20.Nd4! =, but not after 13....e5! 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.f4 Qf7! 16.Nd5 OO 17.fxe5 dxe5 =+) 1 2 . . . . d 5 ! ? (Weaker is 12....Nd8?! 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Nd5! +=. But Black should return the pawn with 12....O-O-O! 13. Qxe6 Qxe6 14.Rxe6 Rhe8 15.Rde1!? Kd7! = when White has only the slightest edge, and Harding thinks the game should peter out to a lifeless draw after the likely exchanges along the e-file.) 1 3 . Q e 2 K f 7 (13....O-O-O! 14.Qxe6 Qxe6 15.Rxe6 Rd7! 16.a3 +=/= and White has only a slight and likely temporary edge.) 1 4 . B x f 6 ! (14.Bf4 h6 15. Nb5 Bd6! or 14.Nb5 h6 15.Nbd4!? are unclear) 1 4 . . . . B x f 6 (14....gxf6 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Qh5+! Kg7 17.Rxd4 and White's attack looks strong) 1 5 . N e4 e 4 ! Rh R h e 8 1 6 . N fg f g 5 + B x g 5 + 1 7 . N x g 5 + K g 8 1 8 . Qd Qd 3 g 6 1 9 . Q h 3 ! and White regains his pawn with a good game.



The diagram shows a key moment from NaimVerducci,, when it is White to move after 16....Ne7. Verducci Naim demonstrates that pieces alone can break through pawn cover by sacrificial means. After 17. Rxd6! the Rook is immune from capture since 17.... cxd6? 18.Nxd6+ Kf8 19.Qf7 is mate, so suddenly the central lines are open and Black has no defense. Verducci tried to break one of the pins with 17....Qc8 but lost material after 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Rxe5 Qxe6 20.Rdxe6 O-O 21.Rxe7.

P o s i t i o n a f t e r 1 6 . . . .N .N e 7 .

M 4 d ) 1 0 . Rh Rh e 1 ! += This move completes White's development and forces the exchange of Black's Bishop at e6, weakening his defense of the e-file. After the exchange of Bishops, White threatens to disrupt Black's King's field by Rxe7 and Bxf6, though this motif needs some preparation to assure success. White can also play for piece pressure and a pawn storm against Black's kingside, as in Berlin-Budapest, after which the position remains quite unclear. 10....Bxc4 Harding points out that this exchange may not be as forced as I had assumed. Not 10...0–0? 11.Rxe6! (better than 11.Bxe6?! fxe6 12.Rxe6 Qd7 13.Rde1 d5! unclear) 11...fxe6 12.Bxe6+ Kh8 (12...Rf7?! 13.Nd5! ±) 13.Bf5 ± Krticka-Lyer, Prague 1921 13...h6 14.Bxh6 Qe8 15.g4 with a strong attack. But possible is 10... Qd7!? 11.Bb5 (11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Qc4 0–0–0! = transposes to M4c2 above) 11...0– 0 (11....Kf8?! 12.Ne5 Nokes-Anderson, New Zealand 1979 12...Qc8 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bxc6 Rb8 15.Qa4 +=) 12.Ne5! (White is up a tempo on line M2 above, but finding the way to mate is complicated. complicated. Alternatives include 12.Nd4!?, 12.Ne4!? Nxe4 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Bxe7 Rfe8 15.Ne5 Qxe7 16.Qxe7 Rxe7 17.Nxc6 Ree8 18. Rxe4 =, and 12.Bd3!? Bf5! =+ but these do not appear promising.) 12...Qe8 (not 12...Qc8? 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bd3! h6 15.Bxh6 gxh6 16.Qxh6 followed by Re3 -->) 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bd3 h6 15.f4! (The immediate 15.Bxh6!? Ng4! 16.Bg5 Bxg5+ 17.Qxg5 Nxf2 18.Qh4 [18.Ne4!?] 18...Nxd3+ 19.Rxd3 Qd8 20.Qh5 Qf6 21.Rf3 Qh6+ 22.Qxh6 gxh6 23.Ne4 is unclear). After 15.f4! Harding writes that the position "poses awkward questions" for Black since now the Bxh6 sac is really threatened. Forced seems 15...Qd8! 16.Ne4! (16.Bxh6!? Ne4 17.Qh5 Nf6 18.Qg5 Ne8 19.Qh5 Nf6 20.Qe2!? is also interesting) 16...Nd5 17.c4! Nf6 (17...Bxg5? 18. fxg5 Nb4 19.Nf6+! +-) 18.g4! (less clear is 18.Nxf6+ Bxf6 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Qxf6 gxf6 21.f5 Bd7 22.Re7 +=) 18...Rb8! (18...Re8 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Nxf6+ Qxf6 21. g5 Qd8 22.f5 -->) 19.Re2! Re8 20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.Nxf6+ Qxf6 22.g5 Qd8 23.Qh5 g6 24.Bxg6 Bxc4 25.Be4!! --> and I think White wins. This is a long piece of analysis, though, to prove something that any player as Black should know intuitively: don't go there! 11.Qxc4 The Queen is well-positioned well-positioned here. Clearly inferior is 11.Bxf6?! Be6! 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Qg3 (13.Qxe7+?! Nxe7 14.Ng5 Kd7 =+ Estrin) 13....Qf6 14.Nd5 Qh6+ 15.Qg5 Qxg5 16.Nxg5 Kd7 17.Nf4 Rae8 18.f3 g6?! (better 18....Bc4! =+) 19.Ne4 Ke7 20.Ng5 Kf6 21.Ne4+ Ke7 22.Ng5 Nd8? (22....Ne5! =+) 23.Re3?! (23.Nd5+! ±) 23....h6 24.Ngxe6 Nxe6 25.Rde1 Kf6 26.Nd5+ Kg7 27.Nf4 Kf6 28.Nd5+ 1/21/2 Matrisch-Simon, Recklinghausen 2002. 11....O-O And we arrive at what is likely the critical position of the Urusov Gambit. There are now at least five options for White, the last three of which seem most



promising as methods of seeking an edge. But readers are urged to look through all of the analysis as there are ideas and motifs (especially Torre's exchange exchange sacrifice) that are useful for White in other lines. M4d1) 12.Rxe7?!

M4d2) 12.Qh4

M4d4) 12.Rd3!?

M4d5) 12.h4!?

M4d3) 12.Re3!?

M4d1) 12.R Rx x e 7 ? ! =+ (This sacrifice has more psychological power than analytic validity at this point. But a lot can be learned from this game, since the exchange sacrifice is always a latent possibility in these lines.) 1 2 . . . . N x e 7 1 3 . Bx B x f 6 g x f 6 1 4 . Ne N e 4 N g 6 ? (Better defensive prospects are offered by 14....Kh8! 15.Nxf6 Ng8! 16.Nh5 Qd7 17.g4 Qe6 18.Qd4+ f6 =+) 1 5 . Q c3 c3 ! + = K g 7 ? ! 1 6 . N d 4 Q c8 c8 1 7 . Q f 3 Re Re 8 1 8 . Qx Qx f 6 + K f 8 1 9 . N g 5 ± Re7 20.Nf5 Qd8 21.h4 Ke8 22.h5 Ne5 23.f4 Ng4 24.Ng7+ Kd7 25.Qf5+ Kc6 26.Qxg4 +- f6 27.N5e6 Qg8 28.Qf3+ Kb6 29.Qb3+ Ka6 30.Qc4+ Kb6 31.Rd5 a5 32.Rb5+ Ka6 33.a4 c6 34.Re5+ Kb6 35. Qb3+ Ka6 36.Nc5+ dxc5 37.Qxg8 Rxg8 38.Rxe7 h6 39.g3 b5 40.Nf5 bxa4 41.Re6 Kb5 42.Rxf6 c4 43.c3 a3 44.bxa3 Ka4 45.Rxh6 Kxa3 46. Rxc6 Kb3 47.h6 Kxc3 48.h7 Re8 49.Rxc4+ 1-0 Torre-Santasie Torre-Santasiere, re, New York 1924 .

In the position from Torre-Santasiere Torre-Santasiere,, it is White to move after 19....Re7. Torre's "real sacrifice" of the exchange has yielded a powerful attack, and he has the pleasant choice of 20.Nxh7+ winning another pawn or 20.Nf5! winning back at least the sacrificed material. Torre chose 20.Nf5, when the hapless Rook cannot move from the defense of f7, and if 20....Rd7 21.Nxh7+ Ke8 22.Ng7# or 21....Kg8 22. Qg7#. Black tried 20....Qd8 when Torre chose to continue the attack rather than grab the Rook with 21.h4! Ke8 22.h5 Ne5 23.f4 Ng4 24.Ng7+ Kd7 25. Qf5+ Kc6 26.Qxg4 netting him two pieces for a Rook without ending the King chase. P o s i t i o n a f t e r 1 9 . . .. . . Re Re 7 .

M 4 d 2 ) 1 2 . Qh Qh 4 = White prevents immediate simplification by 12....Nd7 and threatens an improved version of Torre's exchange sacrifice idea with 13.Rxe7! While White has a lot of pressure after this move, Black should be able to extricate himself with careful defense. Therefore White probably does best to take the forced draw after 12.Qh4 Re8! 13. Rxe7! = as analyzed in my notes to the game Jaeckle-Gro Jaeckle-Gross, ss, Berlin 1998 1 2 . . . . R e 8 ! (12....h6?! 13.Rd3 [13.Rxe7!? +=] 13....hxg5 [13....d5 14.Bxh6!] 14.Nxg5 Re8 15.Rh3 Nh5 16.Rxe7! g6 17.Rxe8+ Qxe8 18. Re3?! [18.g4! ±] 18....Qf8 19.Nd5 Qg7 20.Nxc7 += Browne-Taylor, BCCC 1993 ; 12....Qd7?! 13.Rxe7! Nxe7 14.Bxf6 Ng6! 15. Ne5! +=) 1 3 . R e 3 ! ? (13.Rxe7! =) 1 3 . . . . N d 7 ? ! (13....Qd7! 14.Rde1 Bf 4 N b 6 (15...Nde5!?) 1 6 . Qh Q h 5 B f 8 ? (16... h6! =+) 1 4 . N d 5 f 6 1 5 . Bf



Qd7! 17.Nd4! Nxd4 18.Rxd4 Bf8 19.Rh3 h6 20.Rg3 Nxd5 21.Qxd5+ Qf7 22.Bxh6 =) 1 7 . N h 4 ? (17.Rxe8! Qxe8 18.Qxe8 Rxe8 19.Nxc7 +=) 1 7 . . .... Rx Rx e 3 1 8 . Bx B x e 3 N e 5 1 9 . B x b 6 a x b 6 2 0 . f 4 R x a 2 ! =+ 21. fxe5 g6 22.Qf3 Bh6+ 23.Kb1 Qa8 24.Ne7+ Kf8 25.Qxf6+ Ke8 26.Qh8 + Bf8 27.Kc1 Qa5? 28.c3 Qb5 29.Rd2 Qa4 30.Rd4 Qb3 31.Rb4 Ra1+ 32.Kd2 Qd1+ 33.Ke3 Qg1+ 34.Kf4? Qxh2+ 35.Kg5 Qg3+ 36.Rg4 h6 + 37.Kf6 Qxe5+ 0-1 Jaeckle-Gross, Berlin 1998 .

In the game Jaeckle-Gross Jaeckle-Gross,, it was Black to move after 20.f4 (see diagram). If Black tried passive defense with 20....Nf7, White might have been able to organize an attack by g4-g5 after taking time out to defend the hanging pawn at a2. But Black took advantage of this moment to assume the initiative with 20....Rxa2! 21.fxe5 g6 22.Qf3 Bh6+ 23.Kb1 Qa8 threatening mate. White might first have played 20.Kb1 before venturing with his pawns, but then Black has time to organize his defense with 20....c6 21.Ne3 Qe8 and it is difficult to see how White will retain any compensation compensation for the pawn. If an improvement is to be found for White in this line, it will have to come earlier. P o si si t i o n a f t e r 2 0 . f 4 .

M4d3) 12.R Re e 3 ! ? unclear From the stem game Berlin--Budapest, Correspondence 1937-1938. 1937-1938 . Despite its reputation, this move offers good chances of playing for a win with relatively little risk of losing. Instead of using a sacrifice at e7 to exploit the open e-file, White builds up piece pressure against Black's position, threatening to set up "Alekhine's Gun" with Qe2 and Re1 if Black takes no useful action. My impression now, though, after examining this move in comparison to 12.Rd3 and 12.h4!? (see below) is that Re3 can be a wasted tempo in some lines -- especially where the Rook moves again to exchange (as after 12....Re8) or sacrifice itself at e7. Clearly either 12.Rd3 or 12.h4!? are the most logical follow-through in the Urusov-player's exploitation exploitation of his time advantage. The fact that 12.Re3!? is still so promising, though, suggests a lot about what we might discover with the other moves. M 4 d 3 a ) 1 2 . . .... N d 7 (This natural move, seeking exchanges, is probably not best since White seems to do quite well in all lines following.) 1 3 . h 4 ! (After this move, Black cannot exchange at g5 and open the h-f ile, nor can he play f6 while White's Queen is at c4. Not 13.Rxe7? Nxe7 14.Re1 Re8 15.Nd5 Nb6 -+ as noted by Richter.) M 4 d 3 a 1 ) 1 3 . . . . R e 8 1 4 . B x e 7 (White accepts the exchanges since he can thus reduce the defensive forces on the kingside) 1 4 . . . . R x e 7 (14...Nxe7?! 15.Ng5 +=) 1 5 . R x e 7 N x e 7 (15...Qxe7?! 16.Nd5 Qd8 [16... Qe6 17.Ng5! Qg6 18.Nxc7 Rf8 19.Qe4] 17. Ng5 Nde5 18.Qe4 g6 19.Qf4 +=) 1 6 . N g 5 N e 5 (16...Qf8 17.Qxc7 +=) 1 7 . Qe Qe 4 N 7 g 6 (17....f5?! 18.Qb4 c5 19.Qb5 c4 20.f4 a6 21. Qxb7±; 17...g6 18.f4 N5c6 19.Qc4 Qf8 20. h5 +=; 17...N5g6 18.h5 Nf8 19.Qf4 Qe8 20. h6 +=) 1 8 . f 4 h 6 (18...Nc6 19.h5 Nf8 20.



Qc4 Ne5 [20...Qd7 21.h6!] 21.Qb3 h6 22. Nce4 hxg5 23.fxe5 Qe7 24.Qxb7 += or 18... Ng4 19.h5 Nf6 20.Qc4 Nh8 21.h6 gxh6 22. Nge4 Ng6 23.Qd4 Nxe4 24.Nxe4 +=) M 4 d 3 a 1 a ) 1 9 . N h 3 ? ! N c6 c6 2 0 . h 5 N g e 7 2 1 . g 4 Q d 7 2 2 . f 5 R e8 e8 23.f6 gx f6 24 .Q Qff 3 K g 7 2 5 . Rf Rf 1 Q e6 e6 2 6 . N f 4 Q e 5 2 7 . Q g 2 N d 4 2 8 . Kb Kb 1 N b 5 2 9 . N x b 5 Q x b 5 3 0 . Q f 3 N g 8 3 1 . N d 5 Q c6 c 6 (32.c4 Re5! 32.g5 hxg5 33.h6+ Kxh6!) 0-1 Berlin--Budapest, Correspondence 1937-1938. 1937-1938 . M4d3a1b) 19.fxe5! hxg5 20. e x d 6 (20.e6!? Ne5 21.exf7+ Nxf7) 2 0 . . . g x h 4 (20...cxd6 21. h5 Nf4 22.Qxb7 Nxh5 23.Rxd6 or 23.Nd5 +=) 2 1 . d 7 ! c 6 2 2 . K b 1 += M 4 d 3 a 2 ) 1 3 . . ..R R c8 c8 1 4 . B x e 7 (The most direct route. Less clear are 14.Rde1 Nde5 15. Qb5 Rb8 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Nd5 Qe6 = and 14.Qb5!? Bxg5 15.hxg5 Rb8 16.Qf5 Re8 =) 1 4 . . ..N N x e 7 1 5 . h 5 N f 5 1 6 . Re Re 2 N h 6 1 7 . g 4 Qf6 18.g5 Qxf3 19.gxh 6! Ne5 20.Qh4 Q g 4 2 1 . Qx Q x g 4 N x g 4 2 2 . N d 5 R c e8 e 8 2 3 . Rx Rx e 8 R x e 8 2 4 . N x c 7 Rd R d 8 2 5 . h x g 7 N x f 2 2 6 . Rf Rf 1 += M 4 d 3 a 3 ) 1 3 . . .... N b 6 1 4 . Q g 4 ! (Less clear is 14.Qd3!? Re8 15.Bxe7 Rxe7 16.Ng5 g6 17. h5 Rxe3 18.Qxe3 Qe7 19.Qg3 h6 20.Nf3 g5 . . Re Re 8 1 5 . Rd Rd e 1 21.Re1 Qf6 22.Nd2 =) 1 4 . .. B x g 5 1 6 . h x g 5 ! (Taking with the pawn is almost always strong here for White, since the open h-file and the pawn at g5 further his attack.) 1 6 . . . R Rx x e 3 1 7 . R x e 3 d 5 1 8 . Re Re 1 Q d 6 1 9 . Qh Q h 4 Q d 7 2 0 . Rh Rh 1 Q f 5 2 1 . N d 2 d 4 2 2 . N e 2 N d 5 2 3 . g 4 Qg Qg 6 2 4 . f 4 h 6 2 5 . g x h 6 Q x h 6 2 6 . Q e 1 Q g 6 2 7 . Q h 4 Q h 6 (White has at least equality here, but he should try for Qe 1 Q g 6 2 9 . R h 4 ! ± N cb cb 4 3 0 . more.) 2 8 . Qe N x d 4 Q f 6 (30...Nxa2+ 31.Kb1 Qb6 32.Qh1! Nac3+ 33.Kc1 Na2+ 34.Kd1 Nac3+ 35.bxc3 Nxc3+ 36.Ke1 Re8+ 37.Kf1 Kf8 38.Rh8+ Ke7 39.Rxe8+ Kxe8 40.Qh8+ Ke7 41.Nf5+ +-) 3 1 . N 2 f 3 c5 c 5 3 2 . g 5 ! N x a 2 + 3 3 . Kb Kb 1 Q a 6 3 4 . Qh Qh 1 N a c 3 + 3 5 . b x c3 c3 N x c 3 + 3 6 . K b 2 Qa Q a 2 + 3 7 . Kx K x c 3 c x d 4 + 3 8 . N x d 4 Rc Rc 8 + 3 9 . K d 2 Qa Q a 5 + 4 0 . K e 2 Re Re 8 + 4 1 . K f 2 Qd Qd 2 + 4 2 . K f 3 +- and White wins.



In the correspondence game between the two chess clubs Berlin-Budapest Berlin-Budapest,, it was the Hungarians to move after 18.f4. White seems to have organized an attack, and if Black simply retreats with 18.... Nc6 then 19.h5! causes headaches for the defense. So Black played 18....h6! 19.Nh3?! Nc6 20.h5 Nge7, which slowed up White's attack enough to allow a reorganization of Black's forces. But White should have played 19.fxe5! hxg5 20.exd6 (also possible is 20.e6!? trying to undermine the Knight at g6) 20....cxd6 21.h5 with more targets for attack than in the game continuation and at least a slight advantage. P o si si t i o n a f t e r 1 8 . f 4 .

M 4 d 3 b ) 1 2 . . . . a 6 ? ! (Black cannot afford to waste time since White's threat to triple on the e-file is quite strong.) 1 3 . Q e2 e 2 ! h 6 1 4 . B h 4 Re R e 8 1 5 . Re Re 1 g 5 1 6 . N x g 5 ! h x g 5 1 7 . B x g 5 N e 5 ! (17....Nd4 18.Qd3 Ne6 19.Rxe6! fxe6 20. Rxe6! Nh5! 21.Rg6+! Ng7 22.Qd5+ Kf8 23.Bh6 Bf6 24. Qf5! Kg8 25.Nd5! Re1+ 26.Kd2 + - ) 1 8 . f 4 ! (18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.f4 c6 20.g3 d5 21.Nb1 Re6 22.fxe5 Bg5 23.Nd2 Bxe3 Nfg4! 19. 24.Qxe3 Qf8 25.Qf4 Rae8 26.Nf3 f6 =+) 1 8 . . ..N f x e 5 ! (19.Bxe7?! Rxe7 [19...Qxe7? 20.Rg3 f5 21.fxe5 Qg5+ 22.Qd2 Qxd2+ 23.Kxd2 Kf7 24.exd6 Rxe1 25.Kxe1 cxd6 26.h3 Ne5 27.Rg5 ±] 20.Re4 Nf6 21.fxe5 Nxe4 22. Qg4+ Kf8 23.Nxe4 Rxe5 24.Qh3 Ke8 and the King escapes -+) 1 9 . . . B x g 5 (19...Nxe3 20.Bxe3 Bg5 21.Qg4 Rxe5 22.h4! +=) 2 0 . Q x g 4 K f 8 2 1 . N e 4 ! (21.h4?! Bxe3+ 22.Rxe3 Rxe5 23.Rxe5 dxe5 24.Qh5 Qf6 25.b3 Kg7 26. Qg4+ Qg6 27.Qf3 =+) 2 1 . . . B x e 3 + (21...Bh6 22.Nf6 Bxe3+ 23.Rxe3 Rxe5 24.Nd7+ Qxd7 25.Qxd7 Rxe3 26. Qxc7±) 2 2 . R x e 3 R x e 5 (22...Qc8 23.Qh5 Rxe5 24.Ng5 Qe8 25.Rxe5 dxe5 26.Qh8+ Ke7 27.Qxe5+ Kd8 28.Qd5+ Kc8 29.Nxf7 Qe1+ 30.Qd1 Qe7 31.Qf3 Qe1+ 32.Qd1 Qe7=; 22...Re6 23.Rh3 Rg6 24.Qf5 dxe5 25.Rh8+ Rg8 26.Ng5 Qd5 27.Rh3 [27.Rxg8+ Kxg8 28.Qh7+ Kf8 29. Qh8+ Ke7 30.Qxa8 Qxg2 31.Qg8] 27...Rg6 28.b3±) 2 3 . R h 3 ! Ke Ke 7 2 4 . R Rh h 7 Q c8 c 8 2 5 . Q h 4 + K d 7 2 6 . Rx R x f 7 + ! (26. Nf6+ Kc6 27.Qc4+ Kb6 28.Qd4+ Kc6 29.Qc4+ Kb6 30. . . K c6 c6 2 7 . Qe Qe 1 ! Q e 6 2 8 . Q c3 c 3 + R c5 c5 2 9 . Qd4+ Kc6=) 2 6 . .. Q f 3 ! R e 5 (29...Rd5 30.b4±; 29...Kb6 30.Nxc5 Qe1+ 31. Qd1 Qe3+ 32.Kb1 Qxc5±) 3 0 . N c 5 + Q d 5 3 1 . N d 3 Q x f 3 3 2 . N x e5 e 5 + d x e 5 3 3 . Rx R x f 3 ± Analysis M 4 d 3 c ) 1 2 . . .. .. Re Re 8 This move likely forces White to lose a tempo. M 4 d 3 c 1 ) 1 3 . B x f 6 B x f 6 1 4 . Rx Rx e 8 + Qx e 8 1 5 . N d 5 Q d 8 (15...Bd8?! 16.Re1 Qf8 17. Kb1! [necessary preparation for the idea of playing Qe2-e8-d7 or Qg4-d7 and Re8] 17... h6 18.Qg4 ±) 1 6 . R e 1 B e 5 ?! (Though Black remains up a pawn, White has a strong grip on the position and can strengthen that grip in a number of ways.) 1 7 . h 4 Q d 7 1 8 . c3 c3 R e 8 1 9 . N d 2 R e 6 2 0 . N e 4 K f 8 2 1 . R e 3 +=/



±. M 4 d 3 c 2 ) 1 3 . Qb Q b 3 ! ? N d 7 (13....Rb8?! 14. Rde1! Nd7 15.Bxe7 Rxe7 16.Rxe7 Nxe7 17. Ng5 Qf8 18.Qc4 += and White wins back his pawn at either c7 or h7 with a slight edge; 13...Ng4 14.Bxe7 Rxe7 15.Rxe7 Nxe7 16. Ng5 Nh6 17.Qxb7 Rb8 18.Qxa7 +=) 1 4 . B x e 7 (14.h4!? Nc5 15.Qc4 a5 16.Rde1 h6 17.Bxe7 Rxe7 18.g4 Rxe3 19.Rxe3 Qd7 20. g5 h5 21.g6 Qf5 22.gxf7+ Qxf7 23.Qxf7+ Kxf7 24.Nd5 Rc8 25.Ng5+ Kf8 26.Nf4 Ne5 27. Nxh5 =) 1 4 . . ..N N x e 7 1 5 . Qx Qx b 7 N c 5 1 6 . Q Qb b5 Rb 8 and White has recovered his pawn with good chances. For example: 17.Qe2 Qd7 18. Re1 Ne6 19.Ng5 Nf5 20.Qd3 Nxg5 21.Qxf5 Ne6 22.Nd5 c6 23.Nf6+!! gxf6 24.Rg3+ Kf8 25.Qxf6 d5 26.Qh6+ Ke7 27.Rxe6+ Qxe6 28. Re3 ±. M 4 d 3 d ) 1 2 . . .... Q Qd d7! This is almost certainly the best move and the critical test of 12.Re3. Black completes his development and connects his Rooks, preparing to fight back against White's pressure. The Queen move has the added advantage of defeating some of White's typical plans in this line, as the analysis shows. 1 3 . B x f 6 ! (Exploiting the fact that the Queen's move slightly weakens the f6 . . .B .B x f 6 1 4 . N d 5 Q d 8 square) 1 3 . .. (Probably best when the position is dynamically balanced and difficult to assess. Not 14....Be5?? 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16. Rxe5 dxe5? 17.Nf6+ winning the Queen; 14....Rae8 or 14....Rfe8 are playable but allow 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 damaging the kingside formation when White has very clear compensation for the pawn; 14....Bd8 15.Rde1 and White has stronger pressure because Black's Rooks are not connected; and 14....Qf5?! 15.g4! Qg6 16.h4! helps White to attack. We now reach a critical position for the evaluation of the M3c3 line. White clearly has a strong lock on the position, but Black will wriggle out if he does not pursue an attack.) 1 5 . c 3 ! ? (Probably best. The quiet pawn advance blunts the Bishop's attack on the long diagonal, prevents back-rank mates, keeps the Black Knight out of b4 and d4, supports a White Knight advance to d4, and blocks attacks along the c-file if White wins the c7 pawn.) 1 5 . . . . a 4 (I like this attacking idea best, though it loses some force after 15.c3. Not 15...Bg5?! 16.Nxg5 Qxg5 17.Qb5! Qh4 [17...Qxg2? 18. Qxb7!+-; 17...Ne5?! 18.f4 c6 19.fxg5 cxb5 20.Nc7 Rad8 21.Nxb5 ±] 18.Qxb7 [18.Nxc7?! Rac8 19.Qxb7 Qxf2 20. Rf3 Qxg2 21.Qxc6 Rxc7 22.Qxc7 Qxf3 23.Qxd6 Qe3+ 24. Qd2 Qe6 25.Kb1 f5] 18...Ne5 19.g3! Qh6 [19...Qxh2 20. Ne7+ Kh8 21.Rh1 +-] 20.f4 Rab8 21.Qa6 Ng4 22.Re2 +=) 1 6 . Q b 5 ! ? (A multipurpose move: attacking the pawn at b7, taking advantage of the weakened b5 square, and preventing 16....Bg5 with exchanges) exchanges) 1 6 . . . . Ra 7 (16....Rb8 17.g3! to support h4 += with great control of dark squares) 1 7 . g 4 ! (White has a number of choices here to try to build his pressure, including repositioning moves like 17.Nd2-Ne4, 17.Re4, 17.Qd3-



Qf5, 17.Kb1, and 17.Qa4 to keep Black under wraps, but this seems the most aggressive idea. If White does not act quickly Black might develop a queenside initiative with 17....a4-a3. Therefore, if necessary, White should sacrifice his h-pawn with h4! to open lines.) unclear M 4 d 4 ) 1 2 . Rd Rd 3 ! ? This move seems an improvement on 12.Re3. White plans to develop a piece attack on the Kingside and keeps open the possibility of sacrificing the Rook at e1 (with Rxe7) without the tempo loss incurred after 12.Re3. I think White should, at the very least, be able to force a draw with a rapid attack (see illustrative line M4d4c below). A more slowly developing attack may yield even more for White, but you will have to study this for yourself. M 4 d 4 a ) 1 2 . .. .. .h . h 6 ? ! 1 3 . Q h 4 ! += transposes to BrowneTaylor, BCCC 1993 where after 1 3 . . . . h x g 5 ? 1 4 . N x g 5 R e 8 1 5 . Rh R h 3 ? ! (Müller and Voigt suggest 15.Nd5! Nh5 16.Rxe7 Nxe7 17.Qxh5 Ng6 18.Rf3 +-) 1 5 . . . . N h 5 1 6 . Rx R x e 7 ! g 6 1 7 . Rx Rx e 8 + Q x e 8 I suggest 18.g4! as clearly better for White. M 4 d 4 b ) 1 2 . .. . . .. . . N d 7 ? ! 1 3 . Rx Rx e 7 ! ? N x e 7 1 4 . N d 5 b 5 (14...Nb6 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Bxe7 Nxc4 17.Bxf8 Kxf8 18. Rc3 b5 19.b3 Ne5 20.Nxe5 dxe5 21.Rxc7 a6 22.c4 +=) 1 5 . Q x c7 c 7 N x d 5 1 6 . Qx Qx d 8 R f x d 8 1 7 . B x d 8 N f 4 1 8 . R Rx xd6 R x d 8 1 9 . N e 5 Kf K f 8 2 0 . R x d 7 Rx Rx d 7 2 1 . N x d 7 + K e 8 2 2 . Ne5 Nxg2 23.Nc6 a6 24.Nb4 a5 25.Nc6 a4 26.a3!? += should probably win for White. M 4 d 4 c ) 1 2 . . . . Q d 7 ! (As with 12.Re3 Qd7! this seems to pose White the most problems.) 1 3 . B x f 6 B x f 6 1 4 . N d 5 Q d 8 1 5 . Q g 4 ! ? B e 5 (another illustrative draw line is 15... a5 16.a3 Be5!? 17.Qf5 b5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Rh3 h6 20. Rxe5 dxe5 21.Rxh6 gxh6 22.Nf6+ Kg7 23.Nh5+ =) 1 6 . Q f 5 Qc Q c 8 1 7 . Qh Qh 5 Re 8 1 8 . N x e 5 N x e 5 1 9 . R h 3 h 6 2 0 . N f 6 + g x f 6 2 1 . Qx Q x h 6 N g 6 2 2 . Q h 7 + K f 8 2 3 .Q .Qh 6 + = White may be able to get more out of this type of piece attack, but these lines are quite suggestive of how powerful White's initiative can be. M 4 d 5 ) 1 2 . h 4 ! N is Max Burkett's surprisingly interesting novelty. One idea appears to be 12....h6?! 13.Rxe7! hxg5?! 14.hxg5!! with an incredible attack for White. He recently completed a game by e-mail correspondence correspondence with this line: 1 2 . . . . R e 8 (Probably the best try. I will provide some detailed analysis of alternatives, but so far it all looks good. The one tempo saved by the pawn move over a Rook move makes a big difference. Notice, for example, how 12.h4 gains a tempo over 12.Re3!? against 12....Re8 when the Rooks are inevitably exchanged.) 1 3 . B x f 6 (An alternative plan of attack begins with 13. h5!? and involves sacrificing at least one more pawn for open lines following 13....h6 [13....Nxh5?! 14.Rxe7! Nxe7 15.Qh4! is strong for White] 14.Bh4 Nxh5!? [14....a5 15.g4!] 15.Nd5 g5 16.g4 Ng7 17.Bg3 unclear) 1 3 . .. . . .B . B x f 6 1 4 . Rx Rx e 8 Q x e 8 1 5 . N d 5 Q d 8 1 6 . Re Re 1 ! ? (It is probably better to go for the dark-square bind immediately with 16. g3! or even 16.c3!? Now Black can consider returning the pawn for rough equality with Ne5 at some point.) 1 6 . .. . . h 6 ! ? 1 7 . R e 3 ! (17.g3?! Ne5!) 1 7 . . . . a 6 ? ! (Black must return the pawn with 17....Ne5! or get slowly crushed. The resulting positions following exchanges look close



to equal, though White's pawns are better.) 1 8 . c 3 ! R b 8 ? ! (Last chance for 18....Ne5 =) 1 9 . g 3 ! a 5 ! (Black's last several moves have not fit together as a plan, and one suspects that they are the suggestions suggestions of a computer. Finally, though, Black hits upon the idea of a queenside pawn storm, but he has already lost two critical tempi. Meanwhile, White has established the dark-square bind and is ready to push back the defensive Bishop at f6 and begin a winning kingside assault. Though this plan should be implemented implemented more quickly, without first repositioning the Rook to e3, White has certainly used his time more wisely than Black has!) 2 0 . Q e2 e 2 b 5 2 1 . N d 2 (This knight can also attack via Nf3-h2-g4) 2 1 . . .... N a7 a7 2 2 . f 4 b 4 2 3 . N e 4 B e 7 (The bishop has been forced to retreat and soon there are no defenders to fight off White's pawn and piece assault.) 2 4 . Q g 4 N c 6 2 5 . N e f 6 + K h 8 2 6 . N d 7 ! R a8 a 8 2 7 . Q f 5 Kg K g 8 2 8 . h 5 (The pieces are in place, now here come the pawns!) 2 8 . .. . . .b .b x c 3 2 9 . b x c 3 R c8 c8 ? (This makes things easier, but White's attack is already strong.) 3 0 . g 4 B h 4 3 1 . g 5 ! B x g 5 3 2 . f x g 5 Q x g 5 3 3 . N 7 f 6 + g x f 6 3 4 . Qx Qx c 8 + Kh7 35 .c c4 4 ! N b 4 3 6 . Qe Q e 8 K g 7 3 7 . K b 2 N x d 5 3 8 . c x d 5 Q h 4 3 9 . Q e4 e4 Q x h 5 4 0 . R e2 e 2 1-0 Burkett--Spiridonov, IECG WC-2003-F 2004. A great victory by Max Burkett, rich in ideas and possibilities! The Urusov's teeth have been sharpened!

Conclusion: It was once thought that this main line of the Urusov was a draw after 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6. Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O Be6. But critical re-evaluations at moves 10 and 12 for White have led to a new view: White clearly has more than enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn and has good chances for an advantage. The previous "book" move 10.Bd3?! is now refuted by 10...Ng4! (among others). Meanwhile, 10.Bxe6 has been shown to lead to an equal and likely drawish position. But it has now been demonstrated that 10.Rhe1! is the best move. After 10.Rhe1! Bxc4 11.Qxc4 0-0, White has several options for continuing the attack, but Max Burkett's 12.h4! appears to be the new standard, as proven in a recent correspondence game. I will soon provide more extensive analysis of this game, complete with PGN file, to demonstrate how it keeps White on top. I think it is now certain that this l ine of the Urusov is no longer the most critical, and Black will have to look elsewhere for equality.

Line N>>> N>>>

Contact: Michael Goeller, Goeller , [email protected] Last modified: August 7 , 2004 Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved


The Urusov Gambit - Line N - 4....Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Qh4


s

N ) 4 . . .. .. N x e 4 5 . Q x d 4 N f 6 6 . N c 3 B e 7 7.Bg5 c6 8 .O O-- O - O d 5 9 . Q h 4


N 1 ) 9....O-O N 2 ) 9....Nbd7

A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ...

N 3 ) 9....Qa5 N 4 ) 9....Be6!

Introduction

B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4 C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ E) 4.Nf3 d6 F) 4.Nf3 c5 G) 4.Nf3 Bc5 H) 4.Nf3 d5 I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ... J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ... L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5

Position after 9.Qh4


T he Queen gets out of the way of the Rook at d1 (creating tactical possibilities with the Rook facing Black's Queen at d8) and vacates the d4 square for the Knight at f3. The Queen move, combined with the idea of leaving the Bishop at c4 for as long as possible, was first tested by Schlechter at the turn of the last century and refined by Heinkinheimo in the 1950s. It is now preferred in master practice over 9.Rhe1 followed by Bd3 (note that the Bishop at c4 is still immune after 9.Rhe1 since 9....dxc4?? 10. Qxd8#).


T he Rook move generally transposes to the main lines, however, and most of the games given here actually had the more traditional move order. One well known game went rather differently: 9.Rhe1 Be6 10.Bd3 Qa5 11.Kb1 (11.Bf5!) 11....Nbd7 12.Ne5 c5? 13.Qh4 Ne5 14. Re5 O-O-O 15.Bd2 Qc7?! (15....Qb6] 16.Nb5! Qe5 17.Bf4 Qh5 18.Na7+ Kd7 19.Bb5# Fahndrich--Steinitz, Vienna 1897. 1897. Also of interest is the game Monkman-Chessmaster4000, London 1995, 1995, which went 9.Rhe1 Be6 10.Bd3 c5?! 11.Qa4+! Nc6 12.Bc4! dxc4?! 13.Rxd8+ +=. W hile this is the most contested line of the Urusov Gambit, it is also the one where White has achieved the best results. Black's central build up (with 7....c6 and 8....d5) appears too slow, and his seemingly stable center often crumbles beneath the f orce of White's initiative. Black does best to delay castling and the main line follows N4 with 9....Be6 10.Rhe1 Nbd7, when White can choose between the tricky 11.Nd4!? and the standard 11.Bd3. The Knight

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/N.html (1 of 14)28/09/06 07:12:12


move seems most forceful, but the Bishop move has been most analyzed. Marco Bulgarini's recent innovation in the N4a3b line may put 11.Nd4!? Nc5 12.f4?! into question, so White should transpose to N4b7 with 12.Bd3!. An interesting alternative plan for White was tried successfully in the game Voigt--Mephisto Voigt--Mephisto,, suggesting that there is still room for innovations in these lines. As always, you are urged to trust your own analysis. N 1 ) 9 . . .. . . OO- O N 1 a ) 1 0 . Bd Bd 3 N 1 a 1 ) 1 0 . . .... N b d 7 ? 11.Bxh7+ Nxh7 12.Bxe7 Qc7 13.Bxf8 Ndxf8 14. Rhe1 +- Heikenheimo--K Heikenheimo--Kongshavn, ongshavn, Dubrovnik 1950 N 1 a 2 ) 1 0 . . .... g 6 11.Rhe1 Be6 12.Nd4 Nbd7 13.Rxe6 fxe6 14.Nxe6 Qe8 15.Nxf8 Qxf8 16.Re1 Re8 17.f4 +- Shamkovich N 1 a 3 ) 1 0 . . .... h 6 1 1 . B x h 6 (11.Rhe1!?) 1 1 . .. . . .N .N e 4 1 2 . Qf Qf 4 B d 6 1 3 . Q e 3 B c 5 1 4 . Qf Qf 4 (14.Nd4 Bxd4 15.Qxd4 gxh6 16.Bxe4 Qg5+ 17.f4 Qxf4+ 18.Kb1 dxe4 19.Nxe4 Nd7 20.Rhf1 20.Rhf1 Qxh2 21.Rd3 c5 22.Qf2 Qe5 23.Qh4 Re8 24.Rg3+ Kf8 25.Rgf3 Re7 26.Qxh6+ Qg7 27.Qh5 Ne5 28.Rg3 Bg4 29.Qh4 Nc4 0-1 Monk--Wharrier, Correspondence 1995) 1 4 . .. .. .B . B d 6 1 5 . Q e 3 N x c 3 (15....Bc5) 1 6 . b x c 3 R e 8 17.Qg5 Qxg5+ 18.Bxg5 Bg4 19.h4 Nd7 20.h5 f6 21.Be3 Bc5 22.Bxc5 Nxc5 23.h6 Nxd3+ 24.Rxd3 gxh6 25.Rxh6 Kg7 26.Rh4 Bf5 27.Rd1 Re2 28.Rd2 Re4 = Fedorov--Barbitsky, Fedorov--Barbitsky, St. Petersburg 1999. N 1 b ) 1 0 . Rh Rh e 1 N 1 b 1 ) 1 0 . . .... h 6 ? 1 1 . Bx Bx d 5 ! N b d 7 (11....hxg5 12.Nxg5 +-; 11.... cxd5 12.Rxe7! +-) 1 2 . B c4 c 4 b 5 1 3 . Bd B d 3 h x g 5 1 4 . N x g 5 R e8 e 8 1 5 . Bh Bh 7 + K f 8 1 6 . Bf B f 5 K g 8 1 7 . N x f 7 K x f 7 1 8 . Be Be 6 + K g 6 1 9 . f 4 N h 5 ! 2 0 . Q g 4 + K h 6 2 0 . Qg Qg 4 + K h 6 2 1 . Bf B f 7 ?! ? ! (21.Bf5!) 2 1 . . . . N x f 4 22.Re6+ Kh7 23.Ne4 Ne5 24.Qxf4 Bxe6 25.Rxd8 Nxf7 26.Rxa8 Rxa8 27.Qc7 Re8 28.Qxc6 Nd6 29.Nxd6 Bg5+ 30.Kb1 Bd7 31.Qc3 Re3 32.Qd2 Re5 33.Qd3+ Bf5 34.Qg3 Rd5 35.Qf3 Be6 36.Nxb5 Re5 37.Qg3 Bf4 38.Qf2 Bg5 39.Nd4 Be3 40.Qh4+ Kg6 41.Nxe6 Rxe6 42.a4 Kf5 43. Qh5+ g5 44.h4 Re4 45.Qf7+ Ke5 46.h5 Rh4 47.Qg7+ Kf5 48.h6 Bd4 49.g4+ 1-0 Schlechter--Neus Schlechter--Neustadtl tadtl and Tietz, Carlsbad 1901. 1901. N 1 b 2 ) 1 0 . . .... N b d 7 1 1 . B d 3 g 6 (11....h6 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.Qxh6 Bd6 14.Re3 Qc7 15.Qg5+ Kh8 16.Ne5! Nxe5 17.Qxf6+ Kg8 18.Rg3 + Ng6 19.Bxg6 1-0 Wober--Drucke Wober--Druckenthaner, nthaner, Austria 1988 1988)) 1 2 . R e 2 (12.Nd4!? Re8 13.Nf5 Bf8 14.Nh6+ Kg7 15.Bf5 Be7 16.f4 b5 17.Re3 b4 18.Ne2 Bc5 19.Rxe8 Qxe8 20.Ng3 Ng8 21.Nh5+ gxh5 22.Re1 Be3 + 23.Kb1 Nf8 24.Bxc8 Qxc8 25.Rxe3 Ng6 26.Qxh5 Qa6 27.Nf5+ Kh8 28.b3 1-0 Oberhofer--Wokurka, Correspondence 1995) 1 2 . . . . Re 8 1 3 . R Rd d e 1 N e 4 1 4 . N x e 4 d x e 4 1 5 . Rx Rx e 4 f 6 (15....Bxg5+ 16. Nxg5 +-) 1 6 . Bc B c 4 + K g 7 1 7 . Qx Qx h 7 + K x h 7 1 8 . Rh Rh 4 + K g 7 1 9 . Bh Bh 6 + K h 7 2 0 . Bf Bf 8 # Larry Evans N 1 b 3 ) 1 0 . . .... Bf Bf 5 N 1 b 3 a ) 1 1 . N d 4 ? ! Bg B g 6 1 2 . Bd Bd 3 N 1 b 3 a 1 ) 1 2 . . .... Q Qd d 7 ? ! 1 3 . f 4 ! (13.Bxg6?! fxg6! [13....hxg6? 14.Rd3-Rh3 ±] 14.Ne6



Re8 15.Rd3 Bc5! =+ [15....h6? 16.Nxg7!!]) 1 3 . . .... h 6 ! 1 4 . Bx B x h 6 ! g x h 6 1 5 . Bx Bx g 6 f x g 6 1 6 . Q x h 6 K f 7 ? (16....Bb4! 17.Qxg6+ Qg7 18.Qxg7+ Kxg7 19.Ne6+ Kf7 20.Nxf8 Kxf8 is highly unclear) 1 7 . N e 6 ? ! (17.Nf3! +due to the double threat at g5 and e5) 1 7 . . . . R g 8 ! 1 8 . g 4 ± Qd6 19.Ne4 Nxe4 20.Rxe4 Bf8 21.Ng5+ Kf6 22.Qh4 Qd7 23.Ne6+ Kf7 24.Ng5+ Kf6 25.Re5 Na6 26.Ne4+ Kg7 27. Qf6+ Kh7 28.Ng5+ Kh6 29.Ne6 Kh7 30.Nxf8 + 1-0 Zarske--Schneider, Correspondence 1993 N 1 b 3 a 2 ) 1 2 . . .... h 6 ! 1 3 . Bx Bx g 6 h x g 5 1 4 . Q x g 5 f x g 6 ? ! (14....Ne4! 15.Bh7+ Kxh7 [15....Kh8!? 16.Qh5 Nf6 17.Qh4 Ne4 18. Qh3 Ng5 =] 16.Qh5+ Kg8 17.Nxe4 dxe4 18. Ne6 fxe6 19.Rxd8 Bxd8 =+ according to Lauterbach) 1 5 . N e 6 N e 4 ? ! (15...Qd7 16. Qxg6 Rf7 17.Ng5 Bd6 =+) 1 6 . Qx Qx g 6 B g 5 + 1 7 . f 4 Q f 6 1 8 . Qx Qx f 6 B x f 6 1 9 . N x e 4 d x e 4 2 0 . N x f 8 Kx K x f 8 2 1 . Rx R x e 4 + = N a 6 2 2 .g .g 4 N c 5 2 3 . R e2 e 2 ? ! (23.Rc4! ±) 2 3 . .. . . .N .N a 4 2 4 . c 4 N b 6 2 5 . g 5 B e7 e 7 2 6 . Re Re 4 K f 7 2 7 . h 4 R h 8 2 8 . Rh Rh 1 ? ! (28.g6+! Kf8 29.a4! ±) 2 8 . . . . R h 5 = 29.b3 Nc8 30.Re5 g6 31.c5 Bf8 Caro--Janow Caro--Janowski, ski, Berlin 1897 1897,, 1/2-1/2 in 81 moves. N 1 b 3 b ) 1 1 . g 4 !? !? This move is certainly playable, but may not yield White a clear advantage. Download my PGN file bf5.pgn for complete analysis. N 1 b 3 b 1 ) 1 1 . . .... Bd Bd 7 ? 1 2 . Rx Rx e 7 ! ? (12.Bd3! h6 13.Bxh6 Ne4 14.g5! gxh6 15.Rg1 Nxc3 16.Bh7+ Kxh7 17.Qxh6+ Kg8 18.g6 1-0 Mercurio--Schneider, Mercurio--Schneider, Correspondence Correspondence 1996) 1 2 . . . . Q x e 7 1 3 . Bd B d 3 h 6 1 4 . Bx Bx h 6 g x h 6 1 5 . Q x h 6 R e 8 1 6 . N g 5 Q f 8 1 7 . Qx Qx f 6 Q g 7 1 8 . Qf4 Na6 19.Nh7 f5 20.gxf5 Nc5 21.f6 N x d 3 + 2 2 . Rx Rx d 3 Q x h 7 2 3 . Rg Rg 3 + K f 7 2 4 . R g 7 + Q x g 7 2 5 . f x g 7 + K g 8 2 6 .Q .Qh 6 ± Rac8 27.Ne2 Re7 28.Nf4 Rxg7 29.Nh5 Rg1 + 30.Kd2 Bf5 31.Ng3 Bd7 32.Qg6+ Kf8 33. Qd6+ Ke8 34.Nh5 Bh3 35.Nf4 Bd7 36.h4 Rg7 37.h5 Rf7 38.h6 1-0 Morper-Grajetzky, Correspondence 1987. 1987 . N 1 b 3 b 2 ) 1 1 . . .... Bg Bg 6 1 2 . N e 5 (not 12.Bxd5? cxd5 13.Rxe7 Qxe7 14.Nxd5 Qc5 -+) 1 2 . . . . Q c 7 ! (12....Bb4?! 13.Nxg6 fxg6 [13....hxg6 14.Re3 +-] 14.Nxd5! cxd5 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16. Bxd5+ followed eventually by Bxb7 ±) N 1 b 3 b 2 a ) 1 3 . B b 3 ! ? (Muller and Voigt say White has an attack here) 1 3 . . . . B d 8 ! ! (Max Burkett's "refutation" when I



analyzed this move with him last summer. Not 13...Re8?! 14. Nxg6! fxg6 [14...hxg6? 15.Re3 +-] 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Rxd5! Kg7 17.g5!! [17.Rd2!? f5 18.Qh3 +=] 17...fxg5 18.Qd4+ Bf6 [18...Kh6 19.Re3! Qxh2 [19... Qc8 20.Rde5 Rd8 21.Qe4 Bf6 22.h4!!] 20.Qe5! Qf4 21.Ne2±] 19.Qxf6+ Kxf6 20.Rxe8 Qxh2 21.Rd6+ Kf5 22.Be6+ Ke5 23. Rd2 a6 24.f4+ Qxf4 25.Bc8+ Kf6 26.Rf8+ Ke5 27.Rxf4 gxf4 28.Rd8 Nd7 29.Re8+ Kd6 30. Ne4+ Kd5 31.Bxd7 Rxe8 32.Nf6 + Kd6 33.Bxe8 Ke7 34.Nxh7 Kxe8 35.Ng5 Ke7 36.Nh3 Kf6 37.Nxf4 Kf5 38.Nd3 +-) 1 4 . f 4 ! ? N b d 7 (14...h6 15.Bxh6 Ne4 16.g5 Nxc3 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qh6+ Kg8 19.Re3 Bxg5 20. fxg5 Nxd1 21.Ng4 f6 22.Qxg6+ Qg7 23.Nxf6+ Rxf6 24.Qxg7+ Kxg7 25.gxf6+ Kxf6 26.Kxd1 =) 1 5 . N x d 7 N x d 7 (15... Qxd7!?) 1 6 .f .f 5 B x g 5 + 1 7 . Qx g 5 f 6 1 8 . B x d 5 + c x d 5 1 9 . N x d 5 Q d 8 2 0 . N e7 e7 + Qx e 7 2 1 . R x e 7 f x g 5 2 2 . R d x d 7 unclear, but probably better for Black in the long run. Download my PGN file bf5.pgn for complete analysis. N1b3b2b) 13.Nxg6!? fxg6 (13....hxg6? 14.Re3! +-) 1 4 . Rxd5!! cxd5 15 .Nxd5 Qxc4 1 6 . N x e 7 + K f 7 (16....Kh8? 17. Nxg6+ Kg8 18.Nxf8 +=) 1 7 . B x f 6 N b d 7 (17....Qxa2?! 18. g5! +=; 17....h6? 18.Nf5!? or 18.Bc3!; 17....Nc6 18.Nxc6 =) 1 8 . B c3 c3 R a e 8 1 9 . Q x h 7 unclear. Download my PGN file bf5.pgn for complete analysis. N 1 b 3 c ) 1 1 . B d 3 ! ? B x d 3 1 2 . Rx Rx d 3 (12...Nbd7 13.Nd4 Bc5 14.Nf5 Re8 15.Rxe8+ Qxe8 16.Nxg7 Qe1+ 17.Nd1 Rx e 7 Q x e 7 1 5 . Bxf2 18.Qf4 +=) 1 3 . B x h 6 g x h 6 1 4 . Rx N d 4 Q e 1 + 1 6 . N d 1 N h 7 1 7 . Re Re 3 Q b 4 1 8 . Qg Qg 3 + (18. Rg3+ Kh8 19.Qg4 Ng5 20.Qh4=) 1 8 . . ..N Ng5 1 9.Nf5 d4 0–1 Klueber - Oller, Correspondence 1995 2 0 . N x h 6 + ! K h 8 2 1 . Qx Q x g 5 d x e 3 2 2 . Qf Q f 6 + K h 7 2 3 . c 3 ± Müller and Voigt N 1 b 4 ) 1 0 . . .... Be B e 6 1 1 . Bd B d 3 (11.Nd4!?) 1 1 . . . . h 6 N1b4a) 12.Kb1!? Nbd7 13.g4! Nc5 14.Bxh6 Nfe4 1 5 . g 5 N c 3 1 6 . b x c 3 N x d 3 1 7 . R x d 3 g x h 6 1 8 . Q x h 6 +-



Voigt--Mephisto Computer, Dortmund 1992. 1992 . N 1 b 4 b ) 1 2 . Bx Bx h 6 N e 4 N 1 b 4 b 1 ) 1 3 . Qf Qf 4 B d 6 (13....Nxf2 14.Bxg7 Nxd3+ 15. Rxd3 Kxg7 16.Rxe6 fxe6 17.Qg4+ Kh7 18.Qh5+ Kg7 19. Rd4 Rg8 20.Rg4+ Kf6 21.Qh6+ Kf7 22.Ne5+ 1-0 Medak--Hopper, Baile Herculane 1994) 1994) 1 4 . Qe Qe 3 B c 5 1 5 . N d 4 (15.Qf4 Nxc3? 16.Bxg7 Nxa2+ 17.Kb1 Kxg7 18. Qg3+ Kh8 19.Re5 Nc3+ 20.bxc3 Bg4 21.Rg5 Qb6+ 22. Kc1 Bxf2 23.Qxg4 1-0 Lemiex--Mary, Correspo Correspondence ndence 1990)) 1 5 . . . . Q f 6 (15....Nxc3? 16.Bxg7!) 1 6 . Be 1990 Be 4 Q h 6 17.Qxh6 gxh6 18.Bf3 Bd7 = Estrin N 1 b 4 b 2 ) 1 3 . Qh Qh 5 ! N 1 b 4 b 2 a ) 1 3 . .. . . .N .N x f 2 1 4 .B .B g g5 5 Nxd3+ 15. R x d 3 N d 7 1 6 . Bx Bx e 7 Q x e 7 1 7 . N g 5 N f 6 1 8 . Q h 4 Q c7 c7 1 9 . Rf Rf 1 R f e 8 2 0 . R x f 6 g x f 6 2 1 . Q h 7 + K f 8 2 2 . Nx N x e 6 + R x e 6 2 3 . Qh Qh 8 + K e7 e7 2 4 . Q x a 8 b 5 2 5 . h 4 (25.g3 b4 26.Nd1 Qb6 27.h4 Re1 28.h5 Rh1 29.h6 f5 30.Qh8 f4 31. gxf4 1-0 MChess 5.0--Genius 2, Van Leeuwen Tournament Nieuwegein 1997) 2 5 . . . . K d 7 26.Qg8 Qf4+ 27.Kb1 Qxh4 28. Qxf7+ Re7 29.Qg6 Re1+ 30.Nd1 Kc7 31.g3 Qh1 32.Qg7+ Kb6 33.Kc1 Rf1 34.Qf8 a5 35. Qb8+ Ka6 36.Qc7 Qh6+ 37.Kb1 f5 38.a4 b4 39.Qc8+ Ka7 40.Qd7+ Kb8 41.Qd8+ Kb7 42.Qxa5 Qh5 43.Qxb4+ 1-0 MChess 5.0--Genius 1, Van Leeuwen Tournament Nieuwegein 1997 N 1 b 4 b 2 b ) 1 3 . .. . . .g .g 6 1 4 . Qe Qe 5 B f 6 1 5 . Qf Qf 4 N x c 3 Estrin 1 6 . R Rx x e 6 f x e 6 1 7 . Qg Qg 4 Rf 7 (17....Nxa2+ 18.Kb1 Rf7 19.Kxa2 Kh8 20. Qxg6 Qg8 21.Qh5 += or 18....Nc3+ 19. Qx g 6 + B g 7 1 9 . Bx B x g 7 (19.Qh7 bxc3 +=) 1 8 . Qx + Kf8 20.Qh8+ Ke7 21.Bg5 Bf6 22.Bxf6+ Rxf6 23.Qg7+ and White's attack continues with unclear play according to Van der Tak) 1 9 . . .... Rx Rx g 7 2 0 . Q x e 6 + K h 8 ? ! (20....Kf8! 21.bxc3 +=) 2 1 . Q h 6 + (21.bxc3 +=) 2 1 . . . . K g 8 2 2 . B f 5 ! ? N x d 1 2 3 . B e6 e 6 + K f 8 2 4 . Qh Qh 8 + K e7 e 7 2 5 . Qx Qx g 7 + K d 6 (25....Kxe6 26.Ng5 + +-) 2 6 . Q e5 e 5 + K c5 c 5 2 7 . K x d 1 (+- Van der Tak) 2 7 . . . . K b 6 28.Qd4+ Kc7 29.Qf4+ Qd6 30.Qxd6+ Kxd6 31.Bf5 Nd7 32.g4 Ne5 33. Ng5 Ke7 34.b3 Rf8 35.h4 Rxf5 36.gxf5 Kf6 37.f4 Ng4 38.Ke2 Nh6 39.h5 Nxf5 40.Kd3 Nh4 41.h6 Ng6 42.Ke3 c5 43.c4 d4 44.Kf3 b6 45.Ne4+ Kf7 46.f5 Nf8 47.Ng5+ Kg8 48. f6 Ng6 49.Ke4 Nh8 50.h7+ Kf8 51.b4 a5 52. bxc5 bxc5 53.a4 Ng6 54.Ne6+ Kf7 55.Kf5 10 Luebke--McMahon, IECG Correspondence 1996.. 1996 N 2 ) 9 . .. . . .N .N b d 7 1 0 . R Rh he1



N 2 a ) 1 0 . . .... d x c 4 ? 1 1 . B x f 6 g x f 6 1 2 . N e 4 ! (12.Nd4!? Qa5 13.Ndb5! Kd8 14.Qc4 cxb5 15.Qf7 Re8 16.Nxd5 +- Shamkovich) 1 2 . .. .. .O .O - O 1 3 . N g 3 K h 8 1 4 . N f 5 B c 5 1 5 . Qh Qh 5 c 3 (15....Re8 16.Nh6! Lane) 1 6 . Re Re 4 Q b 6 1 7 . b 3 R g 8 1 8 . Q x f 7 Q a 5 1 9 . R x d 7 ! B a 3 + 2 0 . K b 1 Q x f 5 2 1 . Re R e 8 1-0 Avrukh--Skripchenko, Linares 2001 N 2 b ) 1 0 . . . . K f 8 ? ! 1 1 . B x d 5 ! c x d 5 (11....Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Bxg5+ 13.Nxg5+- van der Tak) 1 2 . Rx Rx e 7 ! Qx Qx e 7 (12....Kxe7 13.Qb4+ +-) 1 3 . N x d 5 Q e 4 1 4 . B f 4 ! h 6 ? (14....Qe6!? 15.Kb1! [15.Nc7 Qxa2 16.Bd6+ Kg8 17.Nxa8 Qa1+ 18.Kd2 Qxb2 unclear] 15....Qc6 [15....Qg4 16.Bd6+ Kg8 17.Ne7+ Kf8 18.Re1! Qxh4 19.Nxc8 + Kg8 20.Ne7+ Kf8 21.Nxh4 +-] 16.Be5! a5 [16....Nxe5? 17.Qb4+ +-] 17.Bxf6 Nxf6 18.Nxf6 +- Shamkovich) 1 5 . Bd B d 6 + K g 8 1 6 .N . N e 7 + K f 8 (16....Kh7 17. Ng5#) 1 7 . N x c 8 + K e 8 1 8 . Re Re 1 Qx Q x e 1 + 1 9 . N x e 1 R x c 8 2 0 . Qd Qd 4 K d 8 2 1 . N d 3 R e 8 2 2 . Be B e 5 (22.Qxa7! van der Tak) 2 2 . .. . . .R . R e 6 2 3 . f 4 a 5 2 4 . c3 c3 K e 8 2 5 . Q a 4 . . .b . b 6 2 6 . Q d 4 K f 8 2 7 . g 4 R ce c e 8 2 8 . K c2 c2 K g 8 2 9 . a 4 (25.f5! van der Tak) 2 5 . .. R 8 e 7 3 0 . h 3 N e 8 3 1 . Qd Q d 5 N x e 5 3 2 . f x e 5 N c 7 3 3 . Q c4 c4 R d 7 3 4 . Q Qe e4 Nd5 3 5.c4 N e 7 3 6 . Q a8 a8 + K h 7 3 7 . Q Qe e 8 R c7 c7 3 8 . Q Qx x f 7 R x c4 c 4 + 3 9 . K b 1 R cc cc 6 4 0 . h 4 N g 6 4 1 . h 5 N x e 5 4 2 . Qf Q f 5 + g 6 4 3 . h x g 6 + N x g 6 4 4 . N f 4 Re Re 1 + 4 5 . Ka K a 2 K g 7 4 6 .N .N h 5 + K g 8 4 7 . Qd Qd 7 R e 7 4 8 . Qx Qx c 6 +- Kreiman--Shirazi, New York 1992. 1992. N 2 c ) 1 0 . . .. .. N b 6 1 1 . B x f 6 g x f 6 1 2 . B d 3 B e 6 1 3 . N d 4 Qd Q d 7 1 4 . Bf Bf 5 B x f 5 1 5 . Q x f 6 += Shamkovich. N 3 ) 9 . . .. . . Qa Qa 5 1 0 . R h e 1 B e 6 (10....dxc4? 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qxf6 +-) 1 1 . N d 4 ! ? (11.Bd3 Nbd7 12.Nd4 O-O-O 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Rxe6 Bb4 15.Ne2 Rde8 16.Rxe8+ Rxe8 17.Kb1 h6 18.Be3 += Miraglia-Perrott Miraglia-Perrotta, a, IECG 1997) 1997) 1 1 . . . . N b d 7 (11....dxc4 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Rxe6 and now 13....Rf8 14.Rde1 Rf7 14.Qh5+!! g6 15.Rxe7+ Kxe7 16.Bxf6+ Kxf6 17.Qxa5 +- or 13....Kf7 14.Rde1 Bd8 15.Qxc4! Qxg5+ [15....Kg6 16.R1e5 +-] 16.f4 Qg4 17.h3! Qf5 [if the Queen surrenders control of e6, there follows 18.Rxf6++! Kxf6 19.Qe6#] 18.Re7+ Kg6 19.Qf7+ Kh6 20.Qxg7+ Kh5 21.g4+ +-) 1 2 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 3 . Rx Rx e 6 K f 7 1 4 . R Rd d e 1 ? ! (14.Nxd5!! +-) 1 4 . . . . R a e 8 ? ! (14....Bb4! +=) 1 5 . B e2 e 2 ! B d 8 (15....Ke6 16.Bh5+ Kd6 17.Qg3+ Reinfeld) 1 6 . B g 4 N x g 4 ? (16....d4! +=) 1 7 . Qx Q x g 4 B x g 5 + (17....Nf6 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Rxf6+ Kxf6 20.Qf4 + Kg6 21.Qd6+ Kh5 22.g4+ +- Reinfeld) 1 8 . Q x g 5 N f 6 (18....Rxe6 19.Qf5+ Rf6 20.Qd7+ Kg6 21.Re3 +- Reinfeld) 1 9 .R Heinkinheimo--Crepaux, repaux, Dubrovnik 1950 . R x f 6 + ! 1-0 Heinkinheimo--C (19....gxf6 20.Qh5+). N 4 ) 9 . . .. . . B e6 e 6 1 0 . Rh Rh e 1 (The move 10.Nd4!? should eventually transpose to the main line below, because White cannot leave out Rhe1 indefinitely without allowing Black the Nfe4! shot. For example, 10.Nd4 Nbd7 11.Bd3 Nc5 12.Bf5?! Nfe4! 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Qxe7+ [15.Qf4 Qg5!] 15....Kxe7 16.Nxe6 fxe6 [or 16....Nxf2!] 17.Bxe4 dxe4 18.Rhe1 Rhf8 19.Rd2 Rad8 =+) 1 0 . . . . N b d 7 (10....O-O transposes to N1 above) N 4 a ) 1 1 . N d 4 ! ?? ?? This move may be put into question by N4a3b2 below. White should use it only as a tricky way of transposing to the N4b line after 11.Nd4 Nc5 12.Bd3! N 4 a 1 ) 1 1 . . .... d x c 4 ? 1 2 . N x e 6 ! (12.Rxe6? fxe6 13.Nxe6 Qa5 14.Nxg7 + Kf7 15.Rxd7! Nxd7 16.Qh5+ Kg8! -+) 1 2 . . . . f x e 6 1 3 . B x f 6 B x f 6 (13....gxf6 14.Rxe6 Rg8 15.Qxh7 Rxg2 16.f4 b5 17.Rde1 Ne5 18. Ne4 c3 19.bxc3 c5 20.fxe5 f5 21.Qxf5 Kd7 22.Nxc5+ Bxc5 23.Rd1+ Kc7 24.Qh7+ Qe7 25.Rxe7+ Bxe7 26.Qxe7+ Kb6 27.Rd6+ Ka5 28. Qc7+ Ka4 29.Ra6+ 1-0 Dufek--COMP Rebel 8, Usti 1997) 1997) 1 4 . R x e 6 + K f 8 1 5 . Q f 4 Rc R c 8 (15....Qb8 16.Qf5 Nb6 17.Rdd6 Qc7 18.Rxf6+ gxf6 19.Rxf6+ Ke8 20.Re6+ Qe7 21.Rxe7+ Kxe7 22.Qe5+ Kf7 23. Qc7+ Kf8 24.Qxb7 Rg8 25.g3 Rg7 26.Qxc6 1-0 COMP MChess 4.0-Qc 7 1 7 . Q f 5 K g 8 COMP Genius 2.0, Euro-Chess K 1995) 1 6 . N e 4 Qc 18.R Re e 7 B x e 7 1 9 . Rx R x d 7 h 6 2 0 . g 3 c 3 2 1 . Qe Qe 6 + K h 7 2 2 . Q x e 7 c x b 2 + 2 3 . K x b 2 Q x d 7 2 4 . Qx Qx d 7 R h f 8 2 5 . f 4 R cd c d 8 2 6 . Qe Qe 7 R b 8 1-0 COMP Chess Pro 3.5--COMP Chessmaster 4000, Faas 1994.



N 4 a 2 ) 1 1 . . .... N f 8 1 2 . N f 5 B x f 5 1 3 . Bx Bx f 6 B e 6 1 4 . B x e 7 Q x e 7 1 5 . Q d 4 Q f 6 1 6 . Q e 3 O - OO- O ?! ? ! 1 7 . Q x a 7 Q f 4 + 1 8 . Re Re 3 Q x c 4 1 9 . Qa Qa 8 + K c7 c7 2 0 . Q Qa a 5 + K d 7 2 1 . N e 4 K e 8 2 2 . N c 5 Qf Q f 4 2 3 . N x b 7 R c8 c8 2 4 . Q a 3 N g 6 2 5 . g 3 Q x f 2 2 6 . N d 6 + K d 7 2 7 . N e 4 Qf Qf 5 2 8 . Q d 6 + K e 8 2 9 . N c5 c 5 N e 7 3 0 . Rd Rd e 1 1-0 Schlechter--Teichm Schlechter--Teichmann, ann, Vienna 1904 1904.. N 4 a 3 ) 1 1 . . .... .N .N c 5 1 2 . f 4 ? Better is probably 12.Bd3!, transposing to the main line below. Notice that with the Knight at d4, rather than at f3, the Bishop at g5 is underprotected underprotected in some lines. White plays 12.f4 here in part to defend the Bishop because Black threatened to play 12...Nfe4! But Black appears to have two good lines of defense. N 4 a 3 a ) 1 2 . . .... N f d 7 1 3 . B x e 7 Q x e 7 1 4 . Q Qx x e 7 + (14. Qg3?! dxc4 15.f5 O-O [15....O-O-O? 16.Ndb5! +-] 16. fxe6 fxe6! =+) 1 4 . . . . K x e 7 1 5 . b 4 ? ! (15.Bf1 Kf6 [15.... . . .d . d x c 4 1 6 . f 5 N a 6 =+ g6 16.g4] 16.b4 Bg4! =+) 1 5 . .. 17.fxe6 Nb6 18.exf7+ Kxf7 19.Rf1+ Kg6 20.Nf3 h6 21. Ne5+ Kh7 22.Rf7 Rhe8 23.Nf3 Nxb4 24.Rxb7 N4d5 25. Nxd5 Nxd5 26.Nd4 Ne3 27.Re1 c5 28.Nf3 c3 29.Rc7 c4 30.Rd7 Nxg2 31.Rg1 Re2 32.Nd4 Rf2 33.Ne6 Rg8 34. Rc7 Ne3 35.Nxg7 Kh8 36.Re7 Rxc2+ 0-1 Wapner-Lukacs, Budapest 1997. 1997. N 4 a 3 b ) 1 2 . .. . . .O . O - O! O! (Black does best to get his King off of the e-file immediately) 1 3 . B d 3 (The Bishop could stay at c4, but it will eventually need to reposition reposition for an attack on the castled King. Now White threatens 14. Bxh7+ because the Bishop at e7 is loose. Alternatives seem less good. Attacking with 13.f5!? Bd7! 14.Bxd5? works well if Black plays 14....Nxd5? 15.Bxe7 += or 14....cxd5? 15.Rxe7! Qxe7 16.Nxd5! +-, but it seems to lose after 14....h6! when White has two pieces in the lurch. Also bad is 13.b4?! h6! 14.bxc5 hxg5 15.fxg5 Nh7! =+. Perhaps White should try 13.f5!? Bd7! 14. Rxe7!? Qxe7 15.Bxd5 h6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxf6 gxf6 18. b4!? with some play for the exchange.) 1 3 . . . . R e 8 (The Rook challenges White's control of the e-file and protects the Bishop at e7 while clearing the f8 square for Bf8 or Kf8 to defend in certain lines. Notice that White cannot play 14.Bxf6? Nxd3+! followed by 15.... Bxf6 -+. Bulgarini notes that the immediate 13....Nxd3 + 14.Rxd3 Re8 15.f5 Bd7 is unclear, while after 13....h6 14.Bxh6 Nfe4 15.Qh5 Qc8 16.f5!) 1 4 . B f 5 ? ! N 4 a 3 b 1 ) 1 4 . . .... Bx Bx f 5 ? 1 5 . N x f 5 N c d 7 1 6 . R d 3 g 6 += 17.Nxe7+ Rxe7 18.Rf1 b5 19. f5 b4 20.Nd1 Re4 21.g4 Rxg4 22.Qxg4 Nxg4 23.Bxd8 Rxd8 24.Rd4 Nde5 25.h3 Nh2 26.Rf2 Nhf3 27.Rxb4 Ng5 28.Rg2 Ne4 29.Rb7 Nd6 30.Re7 Nd7 31.fxg6 hxg6 32. Re3 Nf5 33.Ra3 Ra8 34.Ra6 c5 35.Nc3 Nb6 36.a4 d4 37.Ne4 c4 38.Nf6+ Kg7 39.a5 Na4 40.Re2 Rd8 41.Re8 Rd6 42.Rxd6 Nxd6 43. Rd8 Nb7 44.Ne8+ Kf8 45.Ra8 Nxa5 46.Nc7 + 1-0 Tseitlin--Lev, ICPO 1990. 1990. N 4 a 3 b 2 ) 1 4 . . . . h 6 ! 1 5 . B x h 6 (White must



sacrifice the Bishop since both 15.b4? hxg5 16.fxg5 Bxf5! 17.Nxf5 Nfe4! and 15.Re3? hxg5 16.fxg5 Bxf5 17.Nxf5 Nfe4! -+ are losers.) 1 5 . . ..g g x h 6 1 6 . B x e 6 (White cannot improve with 16.Qxh6 Bf8 17.Qg5+ Bg7 18. Nxe6 Nxe6 19.Bxe6 Rxe6 20.Rxe6 fxe6 -+ or 16.Qg3+ Kh8 17.b4 Ng8 18.bxc5 Bh4 19. Qf3 Bxe1 20.Rxe1 Qf6 -+ according to Bulgarini's analysis. Müller and Voigt say that "an ocean of complications" complications" follow 16. b4, but Bulgarini also shows that White is clearly worse after 16.b4 Nh7 17.Qg4+ Kh8 18.bxc5 Bf6 19.Bxe6 Qa5 20.Re3 fxe6 -+. I think Bulgarini's novelty puts the whole 11. Nd4 line in doubt.) 1 6 . . . . N x e 6 1 7 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 8 . Rx R x e 6 K f 7 1 9 . f 5 B f 8 2 0 . Rd Rd e 1 B g 7 2 1 . Qg Qg 3 R x e 6 2 2 . f x e 6 + K g 8 2 3 . a 3 Q e7 e7 2 4 . h 4 R f 8 2 5 . K b 1 N e 8 2 6 . h 5 R f 6 27.Qg4 Nc7 28.Qh4 Nxe6 29.Qg4 Qd6 3 0 . N d 1 Q f 4 3 1 . Qx Q x f 4 N x f 4 3 2 . g 4 Re Re 6 3 3 . 0-1 SerramidigniR e3 e3 R x e 3 3 4 . N x e 3 K f 7 Bulgarini, ICCF 2001-200 2001-2003 3. N4b) 11.Bd3! This move is most often played here and is probably best, given Bulgarini's innovation in the N4a line above. N 4 b 1 ) 1 1 . . .... Q Qa a 5 1 2 . N d 4 O - OO- O 1 3 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 4 . Rx Rx e 6 B b 4 1 5 . N e2 e2 R d e 8 (15....h6 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.Kb1 Bd6 18.Nd4 1-0 Estrin--Klaman, USSR Ch. 1946; 1946; 15....Bc5 16.Kb1 Qb6 17.f3 Bf2 18.Qh3 Kb8 19.Re7 g6 20.Qe6 c5 21.Qxb6 axb6 22.Bb5 h6 23.Bf4+ Kc8 24.Nc3 d4 25.Ne4 Nxe4 26.fxe4 1-0 Tronhjem-Granberg, Dorrespondence 1985.) 1985 .) 1 6 . R Rx x e 8 + R x e 8 1 7 . K b 1 h 6 1 8 . B e3 e 3 += Bc5 19.Bg6 Re7 20.Nd4 Bxd4 21.Qxd4 c5 22.Qd3 Qc7 23.g3 d4 24.Bf4 Qc6 25.Bf5 Ne4 26.f3 Nf2 27.Qc4 b5 28.Qg8+ Kb7 29.Rf1 g5 30.Bc1 Qxf3 31.Qd8 1-0 Miraglia--Perrotta,, IECG Correspondence 1998. Miraglia--Perrotta 1998. N 4 b 2 ) 1 1 . .. . . .Q . Q c7 c7 1 2 . N d 4 N f 8 1 3 . f 4 O - O - O 1 4 . f 5 c 5 1 5 . N d b 5 Q a 5 1 6 . f x e 6 f x e 6 1 7 . Rx Rx e 6 N x e 6 1 8 . Bf B f 5 K b 8 1 9 . B x e 6 d 4 ? 2 0 . B f 4 + K a 8 2 1 . N c7 c7 + K b 8 1-0 Nicolai--Engert, Bamberg 1968 1968. . 22.N3b5 Bd6 23.Nxd6 N 4 b 3 ) 1 1 . . .... Q Qb b 6 1 2 . N d 4 O - O - O 1 3 . N x e 6 f x e 6 1 4 . Rx Rx e 6 B b 4 1 5 . N e2 e 2 (15. Nb5 Muller and Voigt) 1 5 . . .... Bc B c 5 1 6 . B x f 6 N x f 6 1 7 . B f 5 K b 8 1 8 . Q g 3 + Q c7 c7 1 9 . Q x c7 c 7 + K x c 7 2 0 . N d 4 Rd R d e 8 2 1 . R x e 8 Rx Rx e 8 2 2 . N e6 e6 + K d 6 2 3 . N x c 5 K x c 5 2 4 . f3 Re2 25.Rg1 Kd4 26.Bd3 Rf2 27.Rd1 Ke3 28.Bf1 c5 29.b3 Kf4 3 0.a4 b6 3 1 . R e1 e 1 h 5 3 2 . h 3 h 4 3 3 . Ba B a 6 R x g 2 3 4 . Re Re 7 K x f 3 3 5 . R Rx x a 7 K e 3 3 6 . Rb Rb 7 R g 3 37.b4 Kd4 38.R Rx x b 6 c 4 3 9 . K b 2 R x h 3 4 0 . a 5 N e 4 4 1 . B c 8 Rg Rg 3 4 2 . Rb Rb 8 N c 3 4 3 . B d 7 Rg R g 1 4 4 . Rg Rg 8 N d 1 + 4 5 . K a 2 K c3 c3 4 6 . a 6 K x b 4 4 7 . Rb Rb 8 + K c5 c 5 4 8 . a7 a7 N c 3 + 4 9 . Kb K b 2 d 4 5 0 . Rb Rb 5 + K d 6 5 1 .R . R d 5 + N x d 5 5 2 . a8 a 8 = Q c 3 + 5 3 . Kb K b 3 Rb Rb 1 + 5 4 . K a 2 Rb Rb 2 + 5 5 . K a 3 1-0 Nathe--Walther, Correspondence 1975. 1975. N 4 b 4 ) 1 1 . . .... c c5 5 1 2 . N e5 e 5 N x e 5 1 3 . Rx Rx e 5 d 4 1 4 . f 4 N d 7 1 5 . B b 5 B x g 5 1 6 . f x g 5 Q c7 c7 1 7 . B d 7 + K d 7 1 8 . Q Qe e 4 Q c6 c 6 (Not 18....b6 19.Nb5 Qc6 20.Nd4! with a strong attack for White, but 18....Rad8 19.Nd5 Qd6 20.c3 Kc8 is a better try) 1 9 . R x c 5 ! Q e 4 (19....Qxc5 20.Qb7+ Kd6 21.Ne4+ +-) 2 0 . N e 4 Rh Rh c 8 += 21.Rd4+ Ke7 22.a4 b6 23.Rc8 Rc8 24.Kd2 Bf5 25.c4 Rc6 26.Ng3 Be6 27.Kc3 Rc5 28.h4 h6 29.b4 Rc8 30.Ne4 f5 31.Nf2 hg5 32.hg5 Rh8 33.Nh3 Bd7 34.b5 Rh5 35.Kb4 Rh8 36.a5 Be6 37.a6 Bf7 38.Kc3 g6 39.Kb4 Rc8 40.Nf4 Rc5 41.Nd3 Rc8 42.c5 bc5+ 43.Nc5 Be8 44.g3 Rc7 45.Rd1 Rc8 46.Re1+ Kd6 47.Nb7+ Kd7 48.Re3 Bf7



49.Rd3+ Ke7 50.Rc3 Rc3 51.Kc3 Bd5 52.Kd4 Bg2 53.Kc5 Bf1 54.Na5 1-0 Timoshenko--Karpov, Timoshenko--Ka rpov, USSR 1967 1967.. N 4 b 5 ) 1 1 . . .... N f 8 1 2 . N d 4 N g 8 1 3 . Bx Bx e 7 N x e 7 1 4 . f 4 g 6 1 5 . Q Qff 6 R g 8 1 6 . g 4 Q d 6 1 7 . f 5 g x f 5 1 8 . B x f 5 Q f 4 + 1 9 . K b 1 Q g 5 2 0 . Q e5 e 5 O - OO - O ? 2 1 . N d b 5 ! 1-0 Blosze--Carstens, Correspondence 1984. 1984 . N 4 b 6 ) 1 1 . . .... N g 8 1 2 . B x e 7 Q x e 7 1 3 . Q g 3 g 6 (13....Kf8 14.Nd4 g6 15.f4 Nh6 16.f5 Nxf5 17.Bxf5 gxf5 18.Nxf5 += Cibulka--Fichtl, Pardubice 1965) 1965) 1 4 . N d 4 N g f 6 (14....O-O-O? 15.Ncb5! Ndf6 16.Na7+ Kd7 17.Nab5 +-) 1 5 . f 4 N h 5 1 6 . Correspondence ndence Q e3 e 3 Q f 6 1 7 . f 5 g x f 5 1 8 . B x f 5 N g 7 1 9 . g 4 ! 1-0 Firv--Kolojanu, Correspo 1965.. 1965 N 4 b 7 ) 1 1 . . .... N c5 c5 1 2 . N d 4 (12.Bf5?!! Bxf5 13.Bxf6 Ne6 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Nxd5!?? cxd5 16.Qa4+ Kf8 17. Rxd5 Bg6 18.Rd7 Qc5 19.Ne5 Rc8? [19....Qxf2!] 20.Rxf7+! Kg8 [20....Bxf7 21. Nd7+ Ke7 22.Nxc5 Rxc5 23.Qxa7 Rhc8 24.Qxb7+ R8c7 25.Qb4 +=] 21.Nxg6 hxg6 [21....Kxf7? 22.Qd7+] 22.Rf3 Rxh2 23.Rc3 Qg5+ 24.f4! Qd8 25.Qb3 Rxc3 26.Qxe6+ Kf8 27.bxc3 Rxg2 28.Rd1 Qc7 29.Rd7 [29.f5! Estrin] 29....Qxf4+ 30. Kb2 Qf6 31.Qc4 Qb6+ 32.Qb4+ Qxb4+ 33.cxb4 b5 34.Rxa7 g5 35.a4! bxa4 36. b5 Rg4 37.c3 Rg2+ 38.Ka3 Rg1 39.Ka2 Rg2+ 40.Ka3 Rg1 41.b6 1-0 Estrin-Khachaurov, Moscow 1943; 1943; 12.Kb1!? Nfd7 13.Qg3 Bf6 14.h4 h6 15.Be3 Qa5 16. Bd4 O-O-O 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Qf4 Nxd3 19.Rxd3 Rdg8 20.g3 Rg4 21.Qd6 Nc5 22. Rd4 Ne4 23.Qe7 Rgg8 24.Rb4 Qa6 25.Nxe4 dxe4 26.Nd4 Re8 27.Qc5 Bxa2+ =+ Zavanelli-Cordeiro, North Atlantic Correspondence 1985) N 4 b 7 a ) 1 2 . . .... h 6 1 3 . B f 5 (not 13.Nf5?! Kd7! or 13....Nxd3+ 14.Rxd3 Bxf5 15.Bxf6 Be6 16. Rxe6!? fxe6 17.Qh5+ Kd7 =+; but playable is 13.f4!? Nxd3+ 14. Rxd3 O-O 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Qg4 e5 18.fxe5 Bh4 19.Qe6 + Kh8 20.g3 = Lautenbach--Steinm Lautenbach--Steinman, an, Correspo Correspondence ndence 1994 1994,, which may deserve more attention given Harding's suggestion below of meeting 13.Bf5 with 13....Rg8! unclear) N 4 b 7 a 1 ) 1 3 . . .... O O-- O 1 4 . Bx B x h 6 N f e 4 1 5 .Q .Qg 4 B g 5 + 1 6 . B x g 5 Qx Q x g 5 + 1 7 . Qx Qx g 5 N x g 5 1 8 . h 4 B x f 5 1 9 . N x f 5 Nge6 20.b4 Nd7 21.h5 Nf6 22.h6 g6 23.Nd4 Nxd4 24.R Rx x d 4 R f e 8 2 5 . Rx R x e 8 + R x e 8 2 6 . g 4 += Hartnak-Brewer, 1993. 1993. N 4 b 7 a 2 ) 1 3 . . .... N h 7 1 4 . B x e 7 Qx Qx e 7 1 5 . Q Qx xe7+ Kxe7 1 6 . b 4 N a 6 1 7 . Bx Bx e 6 f x e 6 1 8 . N x e 6 K d 7 1 9 . b 5 N c7 c7 2 0 . N c 5 + K c8 c8 2 1 . R e e7 7 g6 2 2.bxc6 bxc6 23.N3e4 N e 8 2 4 . c 4 d x e 4 2 5 . N e 6 N g 7 2 6 . R c7 c7 + K b 8 2 7 . R x g 7 N g 5 2 8 . N d 8 K c8 c 8 2 9 . h 4 R h 7 3 0 . Rg R g 8 K c 7 3 1 . h x g 5 +Zedtler--Wilhelmi, Zedtler--Wilhelm i, 1999 1999.. N 4 b 7 a 3 ) 1 3 . . .... Q Qd d 7 1 4 . b 4 ? (14.Nxe6! Nxe6 [14...fxe6 15.Na4! Nxa4 16.Bxe6 Qd6 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Qxa4 Kd8 19.c4! d4 20.g3 +=] 15.Qh3 Qc7 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Qxe6+ Kf8 19.Kb1 +=) 1 4 . . .. .. O - O - O 1 5 . N x e 6 ? ! f x e 6 1 6 . b x c 5 e x f 5 1 7 . Bx Bx f 6 B x f 6 1 8 . Q b 4 B x c 3 1 9 . Qx Qx c 3 R h e 8 2 0 . Qa Qa 5 K b 8 2 1 . Q c3 c3 R e 4 2 2 . f 3 R e 7 2 3 . Re Re 5 R d e 8 2 4 . f 4 g 5 2 5 . g 3 R x e 5 2 6 . f x e 5 f 4 2 7 . g x f 4 g x f 4 2 8 . Q d 4 Qf Q f 5 2 9 . Re Re 1 f 3 3 0 . Qe Qe 3 R e e6 6 31 . K d 2 K c 7 3 2 . Rf Rf 1 R x e 5 3 3 . Q x f 3 Q g 5 + 3 4 . K d 3 0-1 Granat--Brustman, Granat--Brustm an, 1980 1980..



N 4 b 7 a 4 ) 1 3 . . .... Rg Rg 8 ! (Harding's suggestion in Kibitzer 83. 83. I think this is the strongest new idea he sets forth in his article and so I've decided to publish a direct response.) 1 4 . B d 2 ! (Harding gives instead 14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Qg4 Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Qd6 17.Na4 [17.Bh7?! Rh8 18.Qxg7 O-O-O 19.g3 Qe7! =+] 17....Nxa4 18. Qxa4 Kd7 19.Bxe6+ fxe6, which he rather generously calls equal [=+ more like].) 1 4 . . . . N f e 4 (The only challenging move based on my analysis.) 1 5 . N x e 4 ! (Harding has discussed the same basic sacrifice in Kibitzer 33, 33, so it is surprising that he doesn't consider this himself. Not 15.Qf4!? Nxc3! -- though Max Burkett points out here that 15....Bg5?! 16.Qg4 Bxd2+ [16... Nxd2? 17.f4; 16...Nxf2 17.Bxg5 Qxg5+ 18.Qxg5 hxg5 19.Rd2 +=] 17.Rxd2 Nxd2 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Bxe6 Nxe6 20.Rxe6+ Kd7 21.Rf6+ Kc7 22.Rf7+ Kb8 23.Nb5 cxb5 = [23...Qg5? 24.Qxg5 hxg5 25.Nd6] is a draw.) 1 5 . . . . N d 3 + (This looks strongest, as it was in Harding's previous analysis.) 1 6 . c x d 3 B x h 4 1 7 . N c5 c 5 g 6 (Less good is 17....Qb6 18.Ndxe6 fxe6 19.Bg6+! Ke7 20.Rxe6 + Kd8 21.d4 Rf8 22.g3! with a strong plus for White) 1 8 . N d x e 6 (18.Bxe6 =) 1 8 . . .... f x e 6 1 9 . Rx Rx e 6 + B e 7 (19....Kf7? 20.Nxb7! leads to some pretty variations) 2 0 .B . B x g6 g 6 + ! (20.Rde1 gxf5 21.Nxb7 Qc7 22.Nd6+ Kd8 23.Ba5 [23.Nf7+!? Ke8! [23....Kc8? 24.Rxe7 Qxh2 25. g3! +-] 24.Nd6+ Kd8 =) 23....Qxa5 24.Nb7+ Kc8 25. Nxa5 Bb4 26.Rxc6+ Kd7 27.Re5 Bxa5 28.Rxh6 Bb6 29. Rxd5+ Ke7 = and White should probably take the repetition by 30.Re5+ etc.) 2 0 . .. . . .R .R x g 6 2 1 . Rx Rx g 6 K f 7 2 2 . N e 6 Qb Q b 6 2 3 . R g 7 + K x e 6 2 4 . Re R e 1 + K f 6 2 5 . Rg Rg x e 7 (25.Rexe7 Qc5+ 26.Bc3+ d4 27.Rgf7+ = draw by perpetual check) 2 5 . . . . R g 8 (25...Qc5+ 26.Bc3+ d4 27. R1e6+ +- Burkett) 2 6 . g 3 and White has at least equal chances if not better in this unbalanced position. Max Burkett suggests 26....Qc5+ 27.Kd1! (27.Bc3+ d4 =) 27...Qxe7 28.Rxe7 Kxe7 29.Bxh6 += since White's three connected passed pawns create "great practical chances." In any case, White should not be worse here. N 4 b 7 b ) 1 2 . . .... N f d 7 N 4 b 7 b 1 ) 1 3 . f 4 ! ? B x g 5 1 4 . f x g 5 N x d 3 + 1 5 . Rx Rx d 3 N c 5 1 6 . Rh R h 3 a 5 1 7 . Q h 5 ! += Kd7 18.Rhe3 b5 19.Nce2 Ne4 20.Nxe6 Kxe6 21.Nc3 f5 22.gxf6 Qxf6 23.Nxe4 dxe4 24.Rxe4+ Kd6 25.Qd1+ Kc5 26.Re5+ Kb6 27.Qd4 + Ka6 28.Qc5 Rac8 29.Re7 Rc7 30.Rxc7 Qf4+ 31.Kb1 Qxc7 32.Re7 Qb6 33.Qxb6+ Kxb6 34.Rxg7 Rf8 35.b3 Rf2 36.h4 h5 37.g3 Rg2 38.a3 Kc5 39.Kb2 Kd4 40.Rg5 c5 41.Rxh5 Rxg3 42.Rh8 c4 43.Rd8+ Kc5 44.Rc8+ Kd4 45.bxc4 bxc4 46.Ra8 Rh3 47.Rxa5 Rxh4 48.c3+ Ke4 49. a4 Rh2+ 1/2-1/2 Prokes--Spielma Prokes--Spielmann, nn, Vienna 1907 1907.. N 4 b 7 b 2 ) 1 3 . Bx B x e 7 Q x e 7 1 4 . Qx Qx e 7 + K x e 7 1 5 . f 4 N x d 3 + 1 6 . Rx Rx d 3 (16.cxd3!? Polugaevsky) 1 6 . . . . N c 5 (16.... g6 17.g4 Nc5 18.f5 [18.Rde3 Kd6 19.b4 Ne4 20.Nxe4 dxe4 21.Nxe6 fxe6 22.Rxe4 1-0 Nejstadt--Volkevich, Moscow 1958] 1958 ] 18....Nxd3+ 19.cxd3 Kd6 20.fxe6 Rae8 21.Nf3 fxe6 22.d4 Rhf8 23.Re3 a6 24.Na4 Rf4 25.Nc5 Re7 26.h3 a5 27.Nd3 Re4 28.Kd2 b6 29.Nf2 Rxe3 30.



Kxe3 c5 31.Nd3 1-0 Neimann--Macles Neimann--Macles,, FRA 1989 1989)) 1 7 . R d e 3 g 6 1 8 . b 4 N a 6 1 9 . N x e6 e 6 f x e 6 2 0 . Rx Rx e 6 + K d 8 21.R Re e 7 d 4 2 2 . N a 4 b 6 2 3 . a 3 N c7 c 7 2 4 . Rg Rg 7 N e 8 2 5 . Rg e 7 N d 6 2 6 . R R1 1 e 6 R e 8 2 7 . Rx R x e 8 + N x e 8 2 8 . Rx Rx c 6 K e 7 2 9 . N b 2 N f 6 3 0 . Rc Rc 7 + K e 6 3 1 . N d 3 a 6 3 2 . Rg Rg 7 K f 5 3 3 . h 3 h 5 3 4 . Re Re 7 N e 8 3 5 . R e5 e5 + K f 6 3 6 . R d 5 K e 6 37.R Rx x d 4 N d 6 3 8 . g 4 h x g 4 3 9 . h x g 4 R e8 e 8 4 0 . N f 2 1-0 Hausner--Weber, Hausner--Webe r, Policka 1992. 1992. N 4 b 7 c ) 1 2 . . .... Kf K f 8 1 3 . B f 5 Q d 7 1 4 . Re Re 5 R e 8 1 5 . Rd Rd e 1 B d 8 1 6 . b 4 B x f 5 1 7 . R x e 8 + N x e 8 1 8 . b x c 5 f 6 1 9 . Bf B f 4 B a 5 2 0 . Qg Qg 3 B e 4 2 1 . B d 2 B g 6 2 2 . h 3 K f 7 2 3 . Qb Q b 8 a 6 2 4 . N ce c e 2 Q c7 c7 2 5 . Q Qa a7 Bxd2+ 26. K x d 2 Q a 5 + 2 7 . N c 3 Qb Qb 4 2 8 . N x c 6 Q f 4 + 2 9 . K d 1 B e4 e4 3 0 . Q x b 7 + N c 7 ? 3 1 . N x e 4 d x e 4 3 2 . g 3 1-0 Marshall--Tholfsen, New York 1924 . N 4 b 7 d ) 1 2 . . .... Kd K d 7 1 3 . f 4 ? (13.Bf5! h6 14.Bf4! g5 15.Qh3 gxf4 16. Bxe6+ fxe6 17.Nxe6 Nxe6 18.Qxe6+ Kc7 [18...Ke8? 19.Qxf6 +-] 19. Qxe7+ Qxe7 20.Rxe7+ Nd7 21.Ne2 Raf8 22.c4 += and I like White's chances in the ending.) 1 3 . . . . h 6 1 4 . B x f 6 ? ! (Slightly better is 14.f5 hxg5 15.Qxg5 Nfe4 16.Qxg7 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Qg8 18.Qe5 Bd6 19.fxe6+ fxe6 20.Qe3 Rxh2 =+) 1 4 . . .... Bx Bx f 6 1 5 . Q Qff 2 N x d 3 + 1 6 . R x d 3 g 6 1 7 . N e4 e 4 b 6 1 8 . f 5 g x f 5 1 9 . N x f 5 R g 8 2 0 . c 4 Rg Rg 4 2 1 . g 3 B e 5 2 2 . h 3 Rx R x e 4 2 3 . Rx Rx e 4 Q g 5 + 2 4 . N e 3 B x g 3 2 5 . Q f 3 Rd Rd 8 2 6 . K c2 c 2 K e 8 2 7 . c x d 5 c x d 5 2 8 . N x d 5 R x d 5 2 9 . Qx Qx g 3 R c 5 + 3 0 . K d 1 Q c 1 + 3 1 . Ke K e 2 Rc R c 2 + 3 2 . Kf K f 3 Q f 1 + 3 3 . Ke K e 3 Re R e 2 + 3 4 . Kd Kd 4 Q f 6 + 3 5 . Lepre--Nyffenegger, ger, Correspo Correspondence ndence Q e 5 Q d 8 + 3 6 . K c3 c 3 Q c 8 + 0-1 Lepre--Nyffeneg 1992.. 1992 N 4 b 7 e ) 1 2 . . .... N g 8 ! N 4 b 7 e 1 ) 1 3 . B x e 7 Qx Qx e 7 (13....Nxe7 14.Nxe6 Nxe6 15. f4 Qd6 16.g3 h6 17.f5 Ng5 18.Qg4 Qf6 19.h4 Nh7 20. Qb4 b6 21.Nxd5! cxd5 22.Bb5+ Kf8 23.Rxd5 a6 24.Rd6 1-0 Barnard--Steadman, Correspondence 1997) 1997) 1 4 . Q g 3 g 6 (14....Qf6 15.Ndb5 [or 15.Be2!? Nh6 16.Bf3 Rd8 17.b4 Na6 18.b5 Nc5 19.bxc6 bxc6 20.Qc7 += as in Burkett-Fest Burkett-Fester, er, IECG 1998] 1998] 15....Nxd3+ 16.Rxd3 cxb5 17.Nxd5 Qh6+ 18.Kb1 1-0 Grolehans--Knorr, Correspondence 1989; 1989 ; 14....Nf6? 15.Nf5 Qf8 16.Qc7 Rd8 17.Rxe6+ Nxe6 18.Qxb7 g6 19.Qxc6+ Rd7 20.Qc8 + Nd8 21.Re1+ Ne4 22.Nxe4 gxf5 23.Nd6# 1-0 Zavanelli--Pope, Correspondence 1987) 1987) N 4 b 7 e 1 a ) 1 5 . f 4 ? ! N h 6 (15....O-O-O?! 16. f5 Nxd3+ 17.Rxd3 gxf5 18.Rde3 Qc7 19. Qg7 Ne7 20.Rxe6 fxe6 21.Nxe6 Rdg8? 22. Qxh8! Qxh2 23.Qf6 Ng6 24.Qxf5 Qh6+ 25. Kb1 Qh4 26.Nc5+ Kb8 27.Qe6 Rg7 28.Qd6 + 1-0 Lux--Wittenberge Lux--Wittenberger, r, Wuettemb Wuettemberg erg 1988)) 1 6 . Q e 3 (Perhaps better 16.Be2 or 1988 16.Bb5!?) 1 6 . . . . O - O - O ! =+ (I don't see a good try for White here. Estrin gives "16.... Qf6 17.f5 with attacking chances for White," but better is 17.Be2! += since 17.f5? Nxd3 +! =+. Also strong for Black, though, is 16....Qd6! =+, so this line does not seem to hold up to close scrutiny.)



N 4 b 7 e 1 b ) 1 5 . b 4 N x d 3 + 1 6 . Rx Rx d 3 N f 6 1 7 . Q h 4 O - O 1 8 . R d e 3 R ae a e 8 1 9 . N x e 6 (19.f4?! Nh5 =+ Estrin--Byhovsky, Moscow 1964) 1964) 1 9 . .. . . .f . f x e 6 2 0 . R x e 6 = Van der Tak N 4 b 7 e 1 c ) 1 5 . N c e 2 ! ? O - OO- O 1 6 . N f 4 N h 6 1 7 . N f x e6 e 6 f x e 6 1 8 . Qh Qh 3 N x d 3 + 1 9 . Rx Rx d 3 N f 5 2 0 . N x f 5 g x f 5 2 1 . Q x f 5 Rh R h f 8 2 2 . Rx Rx e 6 R x f 5 2 3 . R x e 7 R x f 2 2 4 . R b 3 Rg Rg 8 2 5 . R b x b 7 1/2-1/2 Navone--Gobel, Correspondence 1989 N 4 b 7 e 1 d ) 1 5 . Nd Nd b 5 N 4 b 7 e 1 d 1 ) 1 5 . . .... Kf K f 8 (15.... cxb5? 16.Nxd5! +- wins) 1 6 . b 4 ! (16.Nc7 Rc8 17.Nxe6+ Nxe6 18.f4 Qf6 19.Rf1 Nh6 20. Qf3 Nc5 21.g4 Nxd3+ 22.Rxd3 Qh4 23.h3 Re8 24.f5 = Wallinger--Sieberg, Correspondence 1987) 1987 ) 1 6 . . . . N x d 3 + 1 7 . Rx Rx d 3 N f 6 1 8 . Qe Qe 5 K g 7 1 9 . Rf Rf 3 c x b 5 ? ! (19....h5 Schafer) 2 0 . g 4 h 6 2 1 . h 4 R ae a e 8 2 2 . g 5 Q d 8 2 3 . Rx Rx f 6 K h 7 24.h5 Rhg8 25.Rh1 d4 26. h x g 6 + R x g 6 2 7 . Rx Rx h 6 + K g g8 8 2 8 . R f x g 6 + 1-0 Schafer-Trzeciak, Correspondence 1985 N 4 b 7 e 1 d 2 ) 1 5 . . .... Rd Rd 8 ! 1 6 . N c 7 + K f 8 1 7 .N . N x e 6 ! (17.Kb1?! Qd6 18.Nxe6+ Nxe6 19.Qh4 Qf4 20.Qxf4 Nxf4 21.Bf1 =+ Sasata--Webb,, IECG 1997) Sasata--Webb 1997) 1 7 . . .... N x e 6 1 8 . N e2 e2 Q d 6 1 9 . Q h 4 K g 7 2 0 . f 4 was unclear in Daubenfeld--Fabrici, Correspondence 1997. 1997 . N 4 b 7 e 2 ) 1 3 . f 4 ! B x g 5 ! (Not 13....Kf8? Torre--Tholfsen, New York 1924 when White should have played 14.b4! Nxd3+ 15.Rxd3 += or 13....h6?! 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Qg3 g6 16.Bxg6! += as in Burkett-Graz Burkett-Grazinys, inys, IECG 1998-2000)) 1 4 . f x g 5 1998-2000 N 4 b 7 e 2 a ) 1 4 . . . . N e 7 (Byhovsky, Pachmann, Larsen) N 4 b 7 e 2 a 1 ) 1 5 . b 4 ?! ?! N x d 3 + 1 6 . Rd Rd 3 N g 6 17.Qg4 O-O 18.Nxe6 fx e6 19 .Q Qx xe6+ K h 8 2 0 . Rg R g 3 R f 4 =+ Byhovsky N 4 b 7 e 2 a 2 ) 1 5 . N x e 6 N x e 6 (on 15....fxe6 White can choose among 16.Na4, 16.g6, and 16.Bxh7!? with at least equal play) 1 6 .



g 6 ? (Max Burkett sees this as an error and thinks best is 16.Re2! g6 [forced] [f orced] 17.Rf1 += leading to advantage, as he demonstrates demonstrates in extensive analysis. Thanks Max!) 1 6 . . .... N x g 6 1 7 . Rx R x e 6 + f x e 6 1 8 . Bx Bx g 6 + K d 7 1 9 . Qg Q g 4 Q e 7 ! 2 0 . B e 4 h 5 2 1 . Qg Qg 3 Q f 6 ! 2 2 . B f 3 ? (22.Bg6 h4 23.Qg4 Kc7 =+ Burkett) 2 2 . . . . h 4 -+ in Burkett--Mascioni, IECG 1999, 1999, 0-1 in 43 moves. N 4 b 7 e 2 b ) 1 4 . .. . . .h .h 6 N 4 b 7 e 2 b 1 ) 1 5 . Bf B f 5 ?! ? ! Q x g 5 + 1 6 . Qx Qx g 5 h x g 5 1 7 . N x e 6 ?! ? ! (17.b4!?) 1 7 . . .... N x e 6 1 8 . B x e 6 f x e 6 1 9 . Rx Rx e 6 + K f 7 =+ GalbergLund--Moller, Correspondence 1994. N 4 b 7 e 2 b 2 ) 1 5 . B g 6 ? ! Kd K d 7 ? ! (The Bishop move is so pretty that it's a shame to admit 15....Qxg5+! 16.Qxg5 hxg5 17.Nxe6 Nxe6 18.Rxe6+ Kf8 19.Rf1 Nf6 =+ is clearly better for Black: likely this was out of the range of any pre-1998 computer computer since it takes over 10-ply to see that Black is better) 1 6 . B x f 7 (16.b4 Na6 17.Bxf7 Bxf7 18.Qg4+ Kc7 19.g6 Nf6 20.Qg3+ Kc8 21. gxf7 Qf8 22.Nf5 Ne4 23.Rxe4 dxe4 24.Nd6 + Kc7 25.Ncb5+ Kb6 26.Qe3+ c5 27.a4 Kc6 28.Nc4 Qe7 29.Qxe4+ Qxe4 30.Rd6# 10 COMP CM32 King2--COMP MachIII, SSDF B x f 7 1 7 . Q g 4 + K c 7 1 8 . Qf Qf 4 + 1993.) 1993 .) 1 6 . . .... Bx K b 6 1 9 . Qx Qx f 7 Q x g 5 + 2 0 . Kb Kb 1 Q f 6 2 1 . Nxd5+ ! c cx x d 5 2 2 . Qx Q x d 5 R c 8 2 3 . Re Re 6 + N x e 6 2 4 . Qb Qb 3 + K c7 c7 2 5 . N x e 6 + K b 8 2 6 . Q g 3 + K a 8 2 7 . Nc N c 7 + R x c 7 2 8 . Qx Qx c 7 a 5 2 9 . R d 8 + K a7 a 7 3 0 . Qb Q b 8 + K a6 a 6 3 1 . Rd Rd 6 + Qx d 6 3 2 . Qx Qx d 6 + b 6 3 3 . Qd Qd 3 + b 5 3 4 . a 4 Nf Nf 6 3 5 . a x b 5 + K b 7 3 6 . Qf Qf 3 + K a7 a 7 3 7 . Qc Q c 6 K b 8 10 Monkman-Hiarcs3 COMPUTER, London 1995.. 1995 N 4 b 7 e 2 b 3 ) 1 5 . R e 5 ! ? Q d 6 (Perhaps Black can improve here with 15....Qc7 or some other move) 1 6 . Rd Rd e 1 O - OO- O N4b7e2b3a) 17.Nxe6?! f x e 6 ! (Now that the King is castled this is safe to play.) 1 8 . h 3 N e 4 =+ Elsborg-Nicolaisen, Correspo Correspondence ndence 1987.. 1987 N4b7e2b3b) 17.g6! Nf6 18. g x f 7 N x d 3 + 1 9 . cx cx d 3 B x f 7 2 0 . N f 5 += N 4 b 7 e 2 b 4 ) 1 5 . N x e 6 N x e 6 (15....fxe6?! 16.Nxd5! Nxd3+ 17.Rxd3 cxd5 18.Rxe6+



Kf7 19.Re5 +=) 1 6 . R e 5 (16.Nxd5?! cxd5 unclear in an old correspondence game A. Giertz-Kornetzky, Giertz-Kornetzky, according to Harding, but I don't see White's attack after 17.Bb5+!? Kf8! 18.Rxe6!? Qxg5+! =+; 16.Bg6?! Qxg5 +! =+) 1 6 . . . . Q d 6 ! (16....Qe7? 17.Qh3 O-OO 18.g6! ±; 16....Ne7? 17.g6! Nxg6 18. Qxd8+! Kxd8 19.Bxg6 ±) 1 7 . Rd Rd e 1 O - OO- O ! (17....Kf8 18.g6! -->) 1 8 . Qf Q f 2 ! h x g 5 (18.... d4 19.Qxf7 Nxg5 20.Qxg7 dxc3! 21.Qxh8 Nf7 22.Qg7 cxb2+ 23.Kb1! Nxe5 24.Qxe5 Qxe5 25.Rxe5 +=/= and I like the Bishop better than the Knight here) 1 9 . Q x f 7 N f 4 ! 2 0 . Q x g 7 ! is unclear, but I like White's chances.

Acknowledgments>>> Acknowledgments >>>



The Urusov Gambit - Acknowledgments


s

Acknowledgments


I first started analyzing the Urusov Gambit 23 years ago, led to it by I. A. Horowitz's classic opening book book (Simon & Schuster Chess Openings: Openings: Theory and Practice 1964), where it is featured in the first chapter. When I discovered over over the board that a line he (and all subsequent writers) gave as "unclear" was actually clearly winning for White (see the game Goeller-Hall, Union County 1980), 1980), I became hooked. hooked. I've been analyzing the Urusov and other openings ever since, even though I gave up playing seriously about 15 years ago.

Introduction

W hy I've published this article is a bit of a mystery to me. Orignally, when I put up my first Urusov Gambit page about three years ago, I just wanted to make my analysis available to others because it was more complete than anything I'd come across in print and it seemed a pity not to share it. I could have put together a book or a CD, but I wanted to reach a wider audience and to learn more about the web in the process. And I've learned a lot these past three years. I've lately been teaching people how to publish web sites and so I now think of this as my hobby site, one where I can have fun while learning more about usability and web publishing generally. It has taken quite a few spare hours to convert my old web site (no longer on the web) into something designed for a wider audience to browse through and use right at the computer. My goal is to have a completely completely usable (though hardly "finished") site by the end of Summer 2003, at which point I hope this will be a model of usability in chess publishing on the web.

G) 4.Nf3 Bc5

A) 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ... B) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.dxe4 C) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 ... D) 4.Nf3 Bb4+ E) 4.Nf3 d6 F) 4.Nf3 c5

H) 4.Nf3 d5 I) 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 ... J) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5?! K) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3! ... L) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d5 M) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 N) 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bg5 c6 8.O-O-O d5 Acknowledgments Urusov Gambit & Related Links Urusov PGN File from Pitt Archives

P utting together a list of acknowledgments and sources for analysis I've been developing for over 20 years is a difficult undertaking. The following list will necessarily be incomplete. incomplete. Besides the sources listed here, I owe debts of gratitude to various people who personally helped me develop the content content for this site. The late l ate Edgar T. McCormick lent his library and reviewed my analysis -- in the process playing countless games with me. The members of the Westfield Chess Club in New Jersey gave me great support as I developed as a player and provided many chances to try out the Urusov in club tournaments. Special thanks to Chess Glenn Petersen who offered me space in The Castled King (precursor to the Atlant ic Chess News ) to publish an early version of this analysis in 1984-1985, and to Bill Freeman who edited my work. I put that article aside for many years, until I put up my first rather primitive web page to share it. That page sat idle for about a year until Max Burkett corresponded with me about it and pointed me toward many of the great game archives on the web that would help to improve what I'd begun. It took me almost a year more to get around to making those improvements, but Max instigated that work and I thank him for that -- and for his many wonderful game files at the Pitt Archive that have supported my efforts.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/gambit/acknowledgments.html (1 of 3)28/09/06 07:12:20


Bibliography Bishop's Opening PGN File zip > Burkett, Max. Max. Various materials on the Urusov Gambit and on Prince Urusov. 1997. . urusovpg.zip >. Accessed April 28, 2001. Collins, Jack. Postal Games. Chess Review . July 1949. 224. Estrin, Yakov and Igor Glazkov. Double King Pawn Openings . 1982. Estrin, Yakov. Gambits . Chess Enterprises 1982. Forintos, Gyozo and Ervin Haag. The Petr Petr off Defense . New York: Macmillan 1991. Galberg-Lund, Soren. Urusovuv Urusovuv Gambit Gambit . Brno: Self published 1995. Available from Chess Digest. An English translation of Galber-Lund's work was available as The Urusoff Gambit at http://ftp.ru.xema http://ftp.ru.xemacs.org/pub/g cs.org/pub/games/freeche ames/freechess/texts/ ss/texts/ urusoff.txt -- still available through the archives. It is also archived under: http://ftp.belnet.be/pub/mirror/ft http://ftp.belne t.be/pub/mirror/ftp.freechess.o p.freechess.org/pub/chess rg/pub/chess/texts/urusoff.txt /texts/urusoff.txt Goeller, Michael. "The Bishop's Opening: Swashbuckling Returns." Two part article. The Castled Castled King: The Official Official Publication Publication of t he New Jersey Jersey Stat e Chess Chess Federation . 9.6-10.1 (November-December (November-December 1984 and January-February 1985): 8-12 and 12-17. Harding, Tim. Bishop's Opening . The Chess Player 1973. __________. __________. "The "The Eternal Appeal of the Urusov Gambit." Gambit." The Kibitzer #28 at ChessCafe. 1998. __________. __________. "Interesting "Interesting Byways in the Classic Open Games." Games." The Kibitzer #46 at ChessCafe. 2000. __________. __________. "Is "Is the Urusov Gambit Sound?" Sound?" The Kibitzer #29 at ChessCafe. 1998. __________. __________. "Once "Once more unto the Urusov, dear friends, f riends, once more..." more..." The Kibitzer #53 at ChessCafe. April 2003. Re-app raisal . Chess Digest 1984. __________. __________. Philidor 's Defense: A Re-app

__________. __________. "Some "Some Opening Topics Revisited." Revisited." The Kibitzer #33 at ChessCafe. 1999. __________. __________. "What "What Exactly Is the Bishop's Opening?" Opening?" The Kibitzer #27 at ChessCafe. 1998. Hooper, David. A Complete Defense to 1.e4 . 1966. Keres, Paul. "Lauferspiel." Dreispringerspiel bis Konigsgambit . Berlin:



Sportverlag 1974. 207-213. Kosten, Tony. Winning wit h t he Philidor Philidor Defense Defense . New York: Henry Holt 1992. Bishop's Opening Opening . New York: Henry Holt 1993. Lane, Gary. Winning wit h t he Bishop's

Larsen, Bent. Chapter C24 in Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO). Beograd 1981. Lasker, Emmanuel. Lasker's Manual of Chess . Dover. Leach, Colin. Bishop's Opening . Self published 1990. Available from Chess Digest. Minev, Nikolai. "Rare and Forgotten Opening Ideas: The Potter-Marshall Potter-Marshall Center Gambit." Play ers Chess News 9.5 (Number 39, August 5, 1985): 4. Müller, Karsten and Martin Voigt. Danish Dynamite: Explosive Gambits: the Danish, Goring, Scotch, and Urusov . Millford, CT: Russell Enterprises, 2003. Reinfeld, Fred. Dubrovnik 1950. Chess Review . December 1950. 365. Play 1.e4 and Win . Chess Digest, 1992. Schiller, Eric. White t o Play

Soltis, Andrew. Karl Marx Plays Chess Chess and Other Report s on t he World 's Oldest Game . New York: David McKay 1991. Tartakower, Dr. S. and J. Du Mont. 500 Master Master Games of Chess Chess . 1952. New York: Dover 1975. Tartakower, Dr. S. and J. Du Mont. 100 Master Master Games of Modern Chess . New York: Dover 1975. Yearbook. Volume 59. Van der Tak, A. C. "A Forgotten Gambit." New I n Chess Yearbook. Edited by Genna Sosonko and Paul van der Sterren. Netherlands: Interchess BV 2001. 106-111.

Van Wieringen, C. A. Annotations. Dick Smit Memorial 2000. Accessed January 10, 2002. West, James. The Philidor Countergambit . Chess Enterprises 1994. Additional entries can be found under the Dimock Theme Tournament bibliography.. bibliography Return to Introduction Introduction>>> >>>



The Urusov Gambit [Michael Goeller]

Recommend Documents