Danish Dynamite: Explosive Gambits: the Danish, Göring, Scotch and Urusov

Be6.

Chapter 1

The Danish Gambit Accepted

Before we start, we have one technical remark: As the Danish, Göring and Scotch gambits accepted contain many transpositions, we have made the move order uniform and changed it for several games to make the book more readable. If you want to know the exact move order of a particular game you can search for it in a database (e.g. ChessBase MEGABASE 2002 or MegaCorr 2003 for correspondence games).

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 (for 4.Nxc3, which usually leads to a Göring Gambit, see chapter 2) 4…cxb2 5.Bxb2

The Danish Gambit Accepted is reached. White has sacrificed two pawns to accelerate his development and to put his bishops on powerful diagonals aiming at Black’s kingside. We now look at

A) 5…Nc6; B) 5…Bb4+; C) 5…Nf6; D) 5…Nc6 followed by 6…d6; E) 5…d6; F) 5th move alternatives; G) 5…d5 White avoids the endgame; F) 5…d5 the endgame.

Chapter 1A 5…Nc6

A) 5…Nc6 6.Nf3 This position is often reached by the Göring Gambit move order. 6…Bb4+ For 6th move alternatives see line D) 5…Nc6 6.Nf3. 7.Nc3

7.Nbd2?! is too passive as White doesn’t have the important option Nd5: 7…Nf6 (7…Kf8?! 8.0-0 d6 9.Qb3 Nh6 10.Rad1 Bg4 11.a3 Bxd2 12.Rxd2 Tarrasch-B.Lasker, Berlin 1880 seems to be unnecessarily risky for Black.)

A) 8.Ng5? 0-0 9.0-0 (9.e5?! d5 10.exf6 dxc4 11.Qh5 Qxd2+ 12.Kf1 Qd3+ 13.Kg1 c3–+) 9…d6 10.f4?! (10.Nb3!?) 10…Bg4 11.Qb3 Bxd2 12.Nxf7 Qe7 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Nh6+ Kh8 15.Nxg4 Qg6–+ (Warzecha)

B) 8.e5

B1) 8…Ne4?! 9.0-0 Nxd2 10.Nxd2 d6 11.exd6 0-0 12.Ne4 cxd6 (12…Bxd6 13.Qh5U) 13.a3 Qh4 14.Bd5 Bc5 15.Rc1 Be6 16.Rc4∞ White’s attack should not be underestimated, e.g. 16…Qe7 17.Qh5 Bxd5? 18.Nf6+ Qxf6 19.Bxf6 Bxc4 20.Qg5 g6 21.Qh6+–

B2) 8…d5 is solid and good 9.exf6 dxc4 10.fxg7 Rg8 11.Qc2 Qd3 12.Qxd3 cxd3 13.0-0-0 Be6N

7…Nf6

The complex and concrete variations of the first two chapters often show a similar setup by White.The queen will be put on one of the two dangerous light-squared diagonals a2-g8 or b1-h7, the king will often castle long to have one rook in the center immediately (with the option e5), the h-pawn will be pushed and the knight from f3 might start the horrific attack by jumping to g5.

I 7…d6 8.Qb3 (8.Qc2!?; 8.0-0!?)

A) 8…Nh6

A1) 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nd5 Ba5 (10…Bc5?? 11.Qc3+–) 11.Rad1 and it is not clear if White’s compensation is sufficient.

A2) 9.Bb5 Ba5 10.Qa3 Bb6 11.Nd5 0-0 (11…Bc5!?) 12.Nxb6 cxb6 13.0-0-0 Qe8 14.Rhe1 f6N/P

A3) 9.0-0-0!?

A3a) 9…Bxc3 10.Bxc3 f6 11.Rhe1 Qe7 12.Nh4 Ng4 13.Nf5 Qf8 14.h3 Nge5 15.Bd5 a6 (15…g6 16.f4 gxf5 17.exf5 Ne7 18.fxe5 fxe5 19.g4 with the idea Bxe5) 16.f4 Ng6 17.g3U

A3b) 9…0-0 10.Nd5 Ba5 11.g4 and White’s attack is dangerous. Some sample lines run: 11…Nxg4 (11…Bxg4 12.Rhg1 Ne5 13.Nxe5 dxe5 14.Bxe5; 11…Re8 12.g5 Ng4 13.Nf6+ gxf6 14.Bxf7+ Kf8 15.gxf6 Re5 16.Bxe5 Ncxe5 17.Ng5 Nxf6 18.f4 Nxe4 19.Nxh7+ Kg7 20.fxe5 Kxh7 21.Rhg1) 12.Rhg1 Re8 13.h3 Nge5 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15.f4 Ng6 16.f5 Ne5 17.Qg3 g6 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.Bxe5 Rxe5 20.Ne7++–

B) 8…Be6 tries to keep the pressure down by giving back a pawn. White shouldn’t do him this favor.

B1) 9.0-0?! Bxc4 10.Qxc4 Bxc3 (10…f6?! 11.Nd5 Ba5 12.Ng5 Qd7 13.Ne6U) 11.Bxc3 f6 12.Rab1 Qc8 13.Ng5 Nd8N/P

B2) 9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.0-0 (10.Qxe6+?! Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Ngxe7P)

B2a) 10…Qd7? is met by Firnhaber’s suggestion 11.Nd5!:

B2a1) 11.Ng5? Bxc3 12.Bxc3 Nd8 13.f4 h6 14.Nf3 Nf6 15.Rae1 0-0 16.f5 a5 17.a4 Ra6 18.e5 dxe5 (18…Nd5? 19.fxe6 Qxe6 20.Nd4 Rxf1+ 21.Rxf1 Qxe5 22.Nf5 Qe6 23.Qxd5O) 19.Rd1 Qc6 20.Nxe5U H.Hansen-J.Hvenekilde, Copenhagen 1994.

B2a2) 11.Nd5! exd5 12.exd5 Nge7 (12…a5?! 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.a3 Bc5 15.Rae1++–) 13.dxc6 Nxc6 14.Ng5 d5 15.Rae1+ Bxe1 16.Rxe1+ B2a21) 16…Kf8 17.Bxg7+ Kxg7 (17…Kg8 18.Bb2O) 18.Ne6+ Qxe6 19.Rxe6O

B2a22) 16…Ne7 17.Ne6O

B2b) 10…Qe7 11.Na4 (11.Nd5?! exd5 12.exd5 Ne5 13.Qxb4 Nxf3+ 14.gxf3 Qg5+ 15.Kh1 Ne7N/P; 11.Ne2!? with the idea Nf4.) 11…Rb8 12.Rac1 Nf6 13.a3 Bc5 14.Nxc5 dxc5 15.Ng5 Nd8 16.Qh3∞

C) 8…Qe7 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.Bxc3 (10.Qxc3!?) 10…Nf6 11.Rae1 0-0 (11…Ne5 12.Nxe5 dxe5 13.f4Y) 12.e5 dxe5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.Rxe5 Qd8 (14…Be6?! 15.Bxe6 fxe6 16.Bb4O) 15.Bb4Y

II 7…Nge7?! 8.0-0 0-0 (8…Bxc3 9.Bxc3 0-0 10.Qb3 d6 11.Qb2 Be6 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Bxg7Y as 13…Rxf3 14.gxf3 Qe8 15.Kh1 Qf7 16.Bf6 Rf8 17.Rg1+ Ng6 18.Qxb7 doesn’t seem to work for Black.) 9.Nd5 Nxd5 10.exd5 Na5 11.Bd3X. There are a lot of arrows in this book. Please read the explanation of the symbols carefully.

III 7…Bxc3+ is also one of Black’s options now and in the following moves. It gives White the bishop pair, but avoids Nd5 and motifs like Bxf7+ Kxf7 Qb3+xb4. Now it is probably a bit early for the exchange as White has the additional possibility 8.Bxc3 Nf6 9.e5 but in the following lines we will see it again and again.

8.Qc2

I 8.e5?! is met by a stunning resource:

A) 8…Ng4 9.0-0

A1) 9…Ngxe5? 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Nd5 Bd6 (11…Nxc4? 12.Bxg7+–) 12.Qh5 0-0 (12…g6 13.Qe2 f6 14.f4 c6 15.fxe5 Bc5+ 16.Kh1+–) 13.Bxe5 Bxe5 14.Qxe5 O

A2) 9…0-0 10.Nd5 d6N

B) 8…Ne4 9.Qd5 Ng5 10.Nxg5 Qxg5 11.Qxf7+ Kd8 12.0-0 Nxe5 13.Qd5∞

C) 8…d5 9.exf6

C1) 9…dxc4? 10.fxg7 Rg8 (10…Qxd1+?! 11.Kxd1 Rg8 12.Nd5) 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.0-0-0+ Bd7 13.Nd5 c3 14.Nxc3 Rxg7 15.Nd5 Rg4 16.Nxb4 Rxb4 17.Rhe1U

C2) 9…Qxf6! 10.0-0 Bxc3 (10…dxc4? 11.Nd5 Qxb2 12.Rb1 Qa3 13.Nxc7+ Ke7 14.Nxa8∞) 11.Bxc3 Qxc3 12.Qe2+ (12.Rc1?! Qf6 13.Bxd5 0-0 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Qd4P) 12…Be6?! (12…Ne7!? 13.Bxd5 c6 14.Bb3 Qf6 15.Rfe1 Bg4 16.Rad1 Bxf3 17.gxf3 Rd8P) 13.Bxd5 0-0 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15.Qxe6+ Kh8 16.Rab1=/N Stein-Spasski, Tallinn 1959.

II 8.Qb3? Qe7 9.0-0-0? Na5 10.Bxf7+ Kf8–+

III 8.0-0!? was chosen by Dr. C. Göring against Wilfried Paulsen. Nowadays it is usually considered to be too slow to compensate for the material disadvantage. White should prefer the most aggressive set up. But the positional pressure in this kind of position should not be underestimated.

A) 8…Bxc3 9.Bxc3 0-0 (9…d6 10.Qb3 0-0 11.Rfe1U) 10.Re1 d6 11.Rb1U

B) 8…d6 9.Nd5 0-0 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qc1 Kg7 12.Nxb4 Nxb4 13.Rb1 Nc6 14.Bd5U

C) 8…0-0 9.Nd5!? (9.e5 Bxc3 10.Bxc3 Ne4 11.Bb2 Qe7 12.Qc2 and White had some compensation in P.Schalkwijk-C.Wiltshire, corrIECC 2000.)

C1) 9…Nxd5?! 10.exd5 Na5 11.Bd3X

C2) 9…Nxe4?! 10.Qc2 Ng5 (10…Re8?! 11.Bd3 Nf6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qc4 Bf8 14.Qf4O) 11.Nxb4 Nxf3+ 12.gxf3 Nxb4 13.Qc3 Qf6 (13…Qg5+? 14.Kh1+–) 14.Qxb4 Qxf3 15.Qb3M

C3) 9…Be7! 10.Qc2 d6 11.Rad1U

IV 8.Ng5? 0-0P

8…d6

I 8…Qe7!?

A) 9.0-0-0 Bxc3 10.Qxc3 0-0 11.e5 (11.Rhe1!?) 11…Ne4 12.Qc2? Nc5 13.h4 Nb4! 14.Qb1 b5 15.Ng5 g6 16.Be2 d5–+ Gufeld-Artsukevich, USSR 1959.

B) 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.Bxc3 d6 11.Rfe1 0-0 12.e5 dxe5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.Rxe5 Be6 15.Rae1 Rae8 16.R5e3U

II 8…0-0 9.0-0-0

A) 9…Bd6 10.Kb1 Ne5?! 11.Bb3 Nxf3?! 12.gxf3 Ne8?! 13.Nd5X c6 14.Nf6+

A1) 14…gxf6? 15.Rxd6 Kh8 (15…Nxd6 16.Qd2 Ne8 17.Qh6+–) 16.Qc3 Rg8 17.Rxf6+–

A2) 14…Nxf6 15.Rxd6 Ne8 16.Rg1 Kh8 17.Qc5 b6 18.Rxd7+–Alvim-Hacuk, corr 2001.

B) 9…d6 transposes to the main line.

9.0-0-0

At first it looks awful to move the king to a spot without a pawn shield, but, remember, this book isn’t named How to avoid risks in the French Exchange. Initiative and time do count.

9.0-0 Bxc3 (9…0-0?! 10.Nd5 is unpleasant for Black.) 10.Qxc3 (10.Bxc3!?) 10…0-0 11.Rad1 Be6 12.Rfe1 and White has some compensation, but it is not clear if it is sufficient.

We now consider A1) 9…0-0!? and A2) 9…Bxc3 as main lines. Other options include:

I 9…Qe7? is a gross blunder due to 10.Nd5O.

II 9…Be6 10.Nd5 Bc5 11.Ng5

A) 11…Ng4 12.f4 Ne3 13.Nxe6 (13.Qc3!?) 13…fxe6 14.Nxe3 Bxe3+ 15.Kb1 Bxf4 16.Bxe6U

B) 11…Nxd5 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.exd5 Nb4 14.Qe4 e5 15.a3 0-0 16.axb4 Rf4 17.Qxf4 exf4 18.bxc5∞

III 9…Bg4 10.e5U (10.Nd5!?) 10…Bxf3 11.gxf3 Nxe5? 12.Rhe1 Nfd7 13.f4 Qh4 14.fxe5 Qxc4 15.Re4O

10.e5

10.Nd5?! Nxd5

A) 11.Rxd5? Be6 (11…Na5?! 12.Rg5 g6 13.h4U; 11…Re8?! 12.Rg5 g6 13.h4 Be6 14.h5X)

A1) 12.Rb5 Bxc4 13.Qxc4 Bc5 14.Qc3 f6 15.Rxb7 Qc8P

A2) 12.a3 Bc5 13.Qc3 Qf6 14.Qxf6 (14.Rg5 Bd4–+) 14…gxf6–+

A3) 12.Rg5 Ne5! (12…g6?! 13.h4) 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Bxe5 dxe5 15.Rxe5 Qe7 16.Qc4 Rae8 17.Nd4 Qf7P

B) 11.Bxd5? Be6 12.Bxg7 (12.Qb3 Qd7 13.Ng5 Bxd5 14.exd5 Qg4P) 12…Kxg7 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Qb2+ Qf6 15.Qxb4 Rfb8P

C) 11.exd5 Ne5 12.Nxe5 dxe5 13.Bxe5 Re8 14.f4 Bg4 and it is doubtful that White has enough compensation.

10…Ng4

10…Nd7?! 11.e6 fxe6 12.Bxe6+ Kh8

13.Nd5 Ba5 14.h4 with an attack.

Bored with bungee-jumping and free-climbing skyscrapers? Then the main line of the Danish Gambit might be the thrill you’re looking for. The Fritz evaluation of this line jumps around like a flea on a griddle. Both sides treat material like they were decadent French kings of the 17th century. This is one of the hottest variations in opening theory.

Many lines were already analyzed decades ago, but the final verdict still hasn’t been reached (recently Tim Harding had an in-depth look at several modern correspondence games in his book 64 Great Chess Games. We have incorporated his notes on the game G. and W. Nielsen - A. van der Linde in our analysis). This complexity might be the reason it’s mostly played in correspondence games, not in the usual tournament chess. It’s just too risky.

We look first at A11) 11.h4. For the other main line, A12) 11.Nd5, see page 24.

Not 11.Ne4? Bf5! 12.Nf6+ Qxf6 13.exf6 Bxc2–+.

A11) 11.h4 Ncxe5!

I After 11…h6 the immediate 12.Nd5! is better than the traditional

A) 12.Kb1?! which seems to be a bit too slow

A1) 12…Re8? was the continuation of the famous old game G. and W. Nielsen - A. van der Linde, corr 1875. Tim Harding has recently uncovered many new points in his detailed analysis in 64 Great Chess Games: 13.Nd5 Be6 14.Ng5! hxg5 15.hxg5 Bxd5 16.Qh7+ Kf8 17.exd6 cxd6 (17…Qxd6? 18.Qxg7+ Ke7 19.Rxd5 Rg8 20.Bf6+ Nxf6 21.gxf6+ Qxf6 22.Rd7++–) 18.Qxg7+ Ke7 19.Rxd5 Qc8 (19…Rg8? 20.Bf6+ Nxf6 21.gxf6+ Ke6 22.Qh7+–)

20.Re1+ (The less spectacular 20.g6!? is probably even stronger: 20…Rf8 21.gxf7X (Harding)) 20…Bxe1 (20…Kd8? 21.Rxe8+ Kxe8 22.g6O) 21.Bf6+ Kd7 22.Qxf7+ Re7? (Heemsoth’s suggestion 22…Ne7! was called for: 23.Bxe7 Rxe7 24.Bb5+ Qc6 (Harding) and White has a hard time proving that he has something better than 25.Qg6 Re6 26.Qf7+=) 23.Bxe7 Nge5 G. and W. Nielsen - A. van der Linde, corr 1875 and now 24.Rxd6+ (24.Qf6? Nxc4 25.Bxd6 Nxd6? 26.Qxd6+ Ke8 27.Qg6+ Kf8 28.Rf5+ Qxf5+ 29.Qxf5+ 1–0 was the end of the game. Hendriksen’s final comment in the magazine Nordisk Postsjakk Blad 1978 was: ‘What an odyssey through the beautiful country of combinations.’) 24…Kc7 25.Bd8+ Kb8 26.Qf4 Qg4 (26…Bb4 27.Rxc6 Qxc6 28.Qxe5+ Bd6 29.Qd5+–) 27.Qxg4 Nxg4 28.g6 Bc3 29.Be6+–

A2) 12…Ngxe5!? 13.Ng5 g6 14.Nd5 Ba3 15.Bxa3 hxg5 16.Qc3 g4 17.h5 b5 (Harding) and Black comes out on top. 12…Ne7 with the idea Bf5 comes into consideration as well.

A3) 12…Ncxe5 13.Ng5!

A3a) 13…Nf6? 14.Nd5 g6 15.Bxe5 Nxd5 (15…dxe5 16.Nxf7 Rxf7 17.Qxg6+ Kh8 18.Qxf7O) 16.Bxd5 Bf5 17.Be4 Qc8 18.Bb2O

A3b) 13…Bf5 14.Qxf5 g6 (14…hxg5? 15.hxg5 g6 16.Qf4 Bxc3 17.Bxc3 Qd7 18.Qg3 Qf5+ 19.Bd3 Qxg5 20.f4+–) 15.Bxf7+ Rxf7 16.Nxf7 gxf5 17.Nxd8 Rxd8∞ (Harding)

A3c) 13…hxg5!? 14.hxg5 g6 15.Ne4 Bf5 16.f4 Ne3? (16…c6!? 17.fxe5 d5 18.Bxd5 cxd5 19.e6 f6 20.gxf6 Nxf6 21.Bxf6 Rxf6 22.Rxd5 Qf8 23.Nxf6+ Qxf6 24.Rxf5 Qxf5–+; Tim Harding’s suggestions 16…Qe7 and 16…Ba3 cast serious doubt on White’s sacrifices as well.) 17.fxe5! Nxc2 (17…Nxc4 18.Qxc4 d5 19.Rxd5 Qe7 20.e6+–) 18.exd6+–(Henriksen, Botterill)

A3d) 13…g6 14.Nxf7 Rxf7 15.Bxf7+ Kxf7 16.Qb3+ Be6 (16…Ke8?! 17.Rhe1∞) 17.Qxb4 Nxf2 18.Rhf1 Bf5+ 19.Ka1 Nxd1 20.Nxd1 (Harding) and we think that White’s compensation is not sufficient.

B) 12.Nd5!

B1) 12…Bc5? 13.Ng5 hxg5 14.Nf6+ Nxf6 15.exf6+–

B2) 12…Qd7!? 13.Nxb4 (13.Ng5? is met by 13…Qf5) 13…Nxb4 14.Qc3 Nxf2 15.exd6 Qg4 16.Rd4 (16.d7?! Bxd7 17.Rd4 Nfd3+ 18.Rxd3 Nxd3+ 19.Bxd3N) 16…Qg3 (16…Nfd3+ 17.Rxd3 Nxd3+ 18.Bxd3 cxd6 19.Ng5 Qf4+ 20.Kb1 Qe5) 17.Qxb4 Nxh1 18.d7 Bxd7 19.Rxd7 Qf4+ 20.Rd2 — In both cases practical games are needed to get an evaluation. We think that White should not be worse due to his raking bishops.

B3) 12…Be6

B3a) 13.Nf6+? is not correct, but Black has to avoid many pitfalls:

B3a1) 13…Nxf6? is wrong as 14.exf6 (14…Re8 15.Ng5 hxg5 16.hxg5 g6 17.Rh6+–; 14…Qd7 15.fxg7 Rfe8 16.Bd3 f5 17.g4X; 14…Ba3 15.Ng5 (15.Bxa3 Qxf6M) 15…Bxb2+ 16.Kb1 hxg5 17.hxg5 g6 18.Bxe6 Ne5 19.Bd5 c6 20.Rh6+–) 14…Bxc4 15.Qxc4 gives White a very dangerous attack, e.g. 15…Qd7 (15…g6 16.Qf4 Kh7 17.Ng5+ Kg8 18.h5 hxg5 19.hxg6+–) 16.Qf4 Rfd8 17.Rh3 d5 18.Rg3 g6 19.Qxh6 Bf8 20.Rxg6+ fxg6 21.f7+ Kxf7 22.Ng5+ Ke7 23.Qh7+ Kd6 24.Ne4++–

B3a2) 13…gxf6! 14.Bxe6 fxe6 (14…Ngxe5? 15.Bxe5 Ne7 16.Bc4 fxe5 17.Ng5+–) 15.Qg6+ Kh8

B3a21) 16.exf6 Rg8 17.f7+ (17.Qh5? Ba3–+) 17…e5 18.fxg8Q+ Qxg8P

B3a22) 16.Qxg4 Qe7 17.exf6 Rxf6 18.Bxf6+ Qxf6 19.Qe4P

B3b) 13.Ng5 hxg5 14.hxg5 Qxg5+ 15.f4 Bf5 16.fxg5 (16.Bd3? Bxd3 17.Rxd3 Qg6 18.Qxc6 dxe5 19.Qxg6 fxg6 20.Nxb4 Nf2P) 16…Bxc2 17.Kxc2 dxe5 (17…Nf2 18.Bd3 Nxh1 19.Rxh1 and White’s attack guarantees him at least a draw.) 18.Rh5 Nf2 19.Rf1 Bc5 20.g6U

II 11…Ngxe5?!

12.Ng5 (12.Nd5 Ba5 13.Ng5 g6 14.f4∞)

A) 12…Ng6?! 13.Nd5 Be6 14.f4!?X (Harding) (14.Nxb4 Nxb4 15.Qc3 Qf6 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Qxb4 Qf4+ 18.Kb1 is interesting as well.)

B) 12…g6

B1) 13.Nd5 should be answered by Bf5!

B1a) as 13…Ba5? is much too risky: 14.f4 Ng4 15.h5 Bf5 16.hxg6 Bxc2 (16…Bxg6?? 17.Qxg6+ fxg6 18.Ne7#) 17.gxh7+ Now Fritz 5.32 gives an assessment of -5.66 although White is actually better. Can anybody top this wrong evaluation? 17…Bxh7 18.Nxh7 Nce5 19.fxe5 Nxe5? (19…dxe5 20.Ndf6+ Nxf6 21.Rxd8 Rfxd8 22.Nxf6+ Kg7 23.Bxe5O) 20.Bxe5 dxe5 21.Rh3 f5 22.Rg3+ Kf7 23.Ndf6+ Ke7 24.Rg7+ Rf7 25.Rxf7# Warzecha

B1b) 13…Bf5! 14.Ne4 (Tait) 14…Bc5 15.h5 Bxe4 16.Qxe4 g5 17.f4 gxf4 18.Qxf4 Kh8 when White’s attack certainly looks dangerous, but Black’s strongholds on the dark squares make the position difficult to assess.

B2) 13.Nce4!?

B2a) 13…Bg4? 14.f4 Bxd1 15.Rxd1 Nxc4 16.Qxc4 h6 17.Nf6+ Kg7 (17…Qxf6 18.Bxf6 hxg5 19.hxg5+–) 18.Ng4++–(Harding)

B2b) 13…Bf5 14.f4 Qe7 15.fxe5 Nxe5 Harding stops here and prefers White due to his extra piece in the attack. We agree, e.g. 16.Qb3 a5 17.h5 h6 18.hxg6 hxg5 19.Qf3+–

12.Ng5

12.Nd5? Bc5 13.Ng5 g6 14.Ne4 Bf5 15.f4 c6!P Klovans-Suetin, Riga 1962

12…g6

12…Ng6 13.Nxh7 (13.Nxf7!? Rxf7 14.Bxf7+ Kxf7 15.Qb3+ Kf8 16.Qxb4 is an interesting suggestion by Tait) takes us to this position:

This is the main try as analyzed by Firnhaber and Harding (among others), but it seems to be less clear than they believed: 13…Kxh7 14.h5

A) 14…Nh6?! 15.hxg6+ fxg6 16.Ne4 Bf5 (16…Qe7 17.Qe2X) 17.Qb3 (17.Bxg7? is met by 17…Ba3+) 17…Qe7 18.Rxh6+ gxh6 19.Bg8+ Rxg8 20.Nf6+ Qxf6 21.Bxf6M

B) 14…Qg5+ 15.Kb1 Bf5 16.hxg6+ Kxg6 17.Bd3 and now 17…Bxc3! is called for, when matters are far from clear. (17…Ne5? was given by Firnhaber and refuted by Harding: 18.Rh3O)

13.Nce4 Bf5?!

I Harding’s idea 13…c6!?

is producing headaches for the white side, but more analysis and practical tests are certainly needed. We only give some sample lines: 14.h5

A) 14…Bf5?

A1) 15.hxg6? Qxg5+ (15…Bxg6!? with the idea to meet 16.Nxh7 with 16…d5 17.Bxe5 Nxe5 is worth analyzing as well.) 16.Nxg5 Bxc2 17.gxh7+ (17.gxf7+?! Rxf7 18.Bxf7+ Nxf7 19.Kxc2 Nxg5 20.Rd4 Nxf2 21.Rh5 Nge4 22.Rxb4 b6N/P) 17…Bxh7 18.Rxh7 d5 19.Be2 Be7 20.Rh5 Nxf2 21.Bxe5 f6 22.Bd4 Ba3+ 23.Kc2 Nxd1 24.Nh7 Rf7 25.Nxf6+ Rxf6 26.Bxf6 Ne3+ 27.Kd2 Bc5 28.Rh8+∞

A2) 15.Qb3 unpinning the knight on e4 to take Qxg5 out of the position, introducing Qh3 attacking b4 and increasing the pressure against f7 — not bad for one move! 15…Qa5 16.hxg6 Bxg6 17.Nxh7 Bxe4 (17…Rfd8 18.Nhf6+ Nxf6 19.Nxf6+ Kf8 20.Qe3 Bc5 21.Qg5 Bd4 22.Rh8+ Ke7 23.Ng4+ Kd7 24.Nxe5+ Qxe5 25.Qg4+ f5 26.Bxd4+–; 17…b5 18.Be2 Bxe4 19.Bxg4 Bxh7 20.Qh3 Rfd8 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Qh6+ Ke8 23.Qe3+–) 18.Qh3 Rfe8 19.Nf6+ Kf8 20.Nxe4 Nxc4 21.Qxg4 Ba3 22.Qg7+ Ke7 23.Qf6+ Kd7 24.Qxf7+ Kd8 25.Qxc4+–

B) 14…d5

B1) 15.f4

B1a) 15…Ne3?! 16.Bxe5 Nxc2 (16…Ba3+ 17.Kb1 Qb6+ 18.Bb3 f6 19.Nxf6+ Rxf6 20.hxg6 Bf5 21.Qxf5 Nxf5 22.Bxf6X) 17.hxg6 f6 18.Nxf6+ Qxf6 19.Bxf6 Rxf6 20.gxh7+ Kh8 21.Kxc2 dxc4 22.Rd8+ Bf8 23.Kc1 Rxf4 24.Rh6 (24.Nf3 Bh3 25.Rxa8 Bxg2 26.Rg1 Bxf3 27.Rg8+ Kxh7 28.Rgxf8 Rxf8 29.Rxf8 Bd5=) 24…c3 25.g4 b5 26.Rg6 Be6 27.Rxa8 Bxa2=

B1b) 15…Be7?! 16.Qc3 Bf5 17.hxg6 fxg6 (17…Bxg6? 18.Be2 c5 19.Nxh7 Bxh7 20.Qh3 Bh4 21.Bxe5 Nxe5 22.Rxd5 Bxe4 23.Rxd8 Rfxd8 24.fxe5 Bg5+ 25.Kb2 Rd2+ 26.Ka1 Kf8 27.Qg4+–)

B1b1) 18.Rxh7? Bxe4 (18…Bxg5? 19.Nxg5 Qxg5 20.fxg5 Kxh7 21.Rh1+ Kg8 22.Be2 Rae8 23.Bxg4 Bxg4 24.Qg3 Rf5 25.Bxe5+–) 19.Rh8+ Kxh8 20.Qh3+ Kg7 21.Qh7+ Kf6 22.Nxe4+ Ke6 23.fxe5 Nxe5 24.Bxe5 Kxe5 25.Qg7+ Kf5 26.Ng3+ Ke6 27.Qxg6+ Bf6 28.Qg4+ Kd6 29.Ne4+ Kc7 30.Qg3+ Kc8 31.Nd6+ Kd7 32.Nxb7 Qe7 33.Bxd5 Be5–+

B1b2) 18.Be2 Bxe4 19.Ne6 Qb6 20.Bxg4 Nd3+ 21.Rxd3 Bf6 22.Rd4 Rf7 23.Nc5 Re8∞

B1c) 15…Nxc4! 16.hxg6

B1c1) 16…fxg6? 17.Rxh7 Nxb2 18.Qxb2X

B1c2) Can White break through after 16…f6!? e.g. 17.Rxh7 (17.gxh7+ Kh8 18.Qxc4 Qe7 19.Nxf6 Nxf6 20.Qd4 Bf5)

B1c21) But not 17…Bf5? which is beautifully refuted by 18.Nf2 Nh6 (18…Bxc2 19.Nxg4 Bxg6 20.Nh6#) 19.Ng4+–

B1c22) 17…Nxb2 and in both cases Black comes out on top, doesn’t he?

B1c3) 16…h6 17.Qxc4 Qxg5 (17…Qe7? 18.gxf7+ Rxf7 19.Qd4 Rg7 20.Nf6+ Nxf6 21.Rxh6 Ne8 22.Rdh1 Rxg5 23.Rh8+ Kf7 24.R1h7+ Rg7 25.Rxg7+ Nxg7 26.Qxg7+ Ke6 27.f5++–) 18.fxg5 dxc4 Can White continue his attack? We looked at 19.gxh6 (19.g7 Re8 20.Nf6+ Nxf6 21.gxf6 Bc5) 19…c3 20.Nxc3 f6 21.Rdf1 (21.Ne4 Bf5) 21…Bc5 but it didn’t seem to work.

B2) 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.Nxh7

B2a) 16…Rf5? 17.Be2 Qa5 18.Bxg4 Nxg4 19.Nhg5 Kf8 20.Rh8+ Ke7 21.Rdh1 Kd7 22.R1h7+ Be7 23.Nc5+X

B2b) 16…Rf7?

B2b1) 17.f3? Rxh7 18.fxg4 Qe7 19.g5 Rxh1 20.Nf6+ (20.Rxh1? Bf5 21.Nf6+ Qxf6 22.gxf6 Bxc2 23.Bxe5 Bf5–+) 20…Kf7 21.Rxh1 Qc5 22.Bxe5 Qxc4 (22…Qe3+!?) 23.Qxc4 dxc4 24.g4P

B2b2) 17.Nhg5 Rxf2 (17…Rf5 18.Qb3 Rxg5 19.Bxd5+ cxd5 20.Rxd5 Qc7+ 21.Rc5+ Qf7 22.Rh8++–) 18.Qb3X

B2c) 16…Bf5! 17.Nxf8 Qxf8 18.Bb3 Ba3 19.f3 Bxb2+ 20.Qxb2 Re8N/P

II 13…Qe7?! 14.h5 Bf5 15.hxg6 Bxg6 16.Nxh7 Rfd8 (16…Bxh7? 17.Rxh7 Kxh7 18.Nf6+ Kg7 19.Qh7+ Kxf6 20.Qh4+ Kf5 21.Qxe7 Nxc4 22.Qd7+ Kg5 23.f4++–) 17.f4 Nd7? (17…Ba3∞) 18.Nef6+ 1-0 Schulz-Trottnow, East Germany 1984.

14.Qb3! (Schlechter) gives White a strong attack, which is confirmed by modern games:

14…a5

I 14…Bxe4?! 15.Nxe4 Nxc4? 16.Qxc4 Ba5 17.f3 Black is in desperate trouble (Botterill) (17.h5 is possible as well: 17…g5 18.f3 b5 19.Qxb5 1–0 G.Hälsig-F.Huybrecht, corr 1980.)

II 14…Nxc4? 15.Qxc4

A) 15…c5

A1) 16.Nxd6? Qc7 17.h5 b5∞ (17…Nxf2? 18.Nxh7 Kxh7 19.hxg6++–)

A2) 16.Rxd6 Qa5 17.Nxh7 Kxh7 18.h5 f6 19.f3 b5 20.Qd5 Bd2+ 21.Nxd2+–

B) 15…Ba5 16.f3 Ne3 17.Qd4 (Henriksen) 17…f6 18.Qxe3 fxg5 19.Qd4 Qd7 (19…Qe7 20.Nxg5 Rf6 21.g4+– (Harding)) 20.Qh8+ Kf7 21.Nxg5+ Ke8 22.Rhe1+ Bxe1 23.Rxe1+ Be6 24.Qc3+–14…Bc5? 15.Nxc5 Nxc4 16.Qxc4 Qe7 17.Rhe1+–Auerswald-Morgner, East Germany 1978.

15.f3!

The spectacular idea 15.h5?! b5 16.Be6

is worth analyzing as well, but objectively is probably not correct, e.g. 16…fxe6 (16…Qe7!?) 17.hxg6 Nxg6 18.Nxe6 Qe7 19.N6g5+ Rf7 20.Rxh7 Be6 21.Nxe6 (21.Rxf7?! is not the way to play for an attack: 21…Bxb3 22.Rxe7 Nxe7 23.Rh1 Ne5 24.Bxe5 dxe5 25.axb3N/P) 21…Rxh7 22.N6g5+ Rf7 23.Rh1 N4e5 24.Rh6

A) 24…d5!? 25.Nxf7 (25.Bxe5 Nxe5 26.Qh3 Nd3+ 27.Kb1 Bc3 28.Rg6+ Bg7 29.Qh7+ Kf8 30.Ne6+ Qxe6 31.Rxe6 dxe4 32.Qxe4 Rd8 33.Qh4 Rfd7) 25…Qxf7 26.Bxe5 (26.Nf6+ Qxf6 27.Qxd5+ Qf7 28.Qxa8+ Bf8) 26…Nxe5 27.Nf6+ Kg7 28.Rh7+ Kxf6 29.Rxf7+ Nxf7 30.Qxd5 Rb8 31.Qc6+ Black should be better in all three cases, but matters are not totally clear.

B) 24…a4 25.Qh3

B1) 25…Rxf2? 26.Bxe5 Rf1+ 27.Kc2 Rf2+ 28.Nxf2 Qxg5 29.Ne4 Qxh6 30.Qxh6 Nxe5 31.Nf6+ Kf7 32.Nd5+–

B2) 25…Rg7 26.f4 Rf8 27.fxe5 dxe5 28.Qh5 Qe8 29.Nf6+ Rxf6 30.Rh8+ Nxh8 31.Qxe8+ Bf8 32.Qxe5U

B3) 25…Ra6 26.Nxf7 Rc6+ (26…Qxf7 27.Qc8+ Kg7 28.Rh7+ Kxh7 29.Ng5+ Kg7 30.Nxf7 Rc6+ 31.Kb1 Kxf7 32.Qf5+ Ke7 33.f4 Nxf4 34.Qxf4 Rc4 35.Qg5+ Ke6=) 27.Kb1 Qxf7 28.f4 Qc4 29.Rxg6+ Nxg6 30.Nf6+ Kf8 31.Qc8+ Kg7 32.Qd7+ Qf7 33.Nh5+=

B4) 25…Ba3 26.Qxa3 Rg7 27.Qh3 Rf8 28.Ne6 Rh7 29.Rxg6+ Nxg6 30.Qg4 Qf7 31.Nxf8 (31.Nf6+?! Qxf6 32.Bxf6 Rxf6 33.f4 Rh4 34.Qg5 Rxe6 35.f5N/P) 31…Qf4+ 32.Qxf4 Rh1+ 33.Kd2 Nxf4 34.Nd7