The Kibitzer by Tim Harding Dracula Has Risen from the Grave - or Has He?

MY VERY first Kibitzer column dealt with the sharp opening line which, many years ago, I called the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation because of its hair-raising and bloodthirsty nature. I explained how the variation got its name and looked at some examples but I did not really look closely into the theory. However, it is now time to do that since my friend Gian-Maria Tani, director of thematic openings tournaments for the International Correspondence Chess Federation, has put the opening on his list of events starting later this year. In case you don't know what I am talking about the key position, from which all games in the thematic tournament will begin, is shown in the first diagram. This is to be found in ECO code C27 and it can be reached via either the Bishops Opening (1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3) or the Vienna (2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4). Play to the diagram then goes 3...Nxe4 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 g6 7 Qf3 f5 8 Qd5 Qe7 9 Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8 b6, but we shall have to go back to the start because a lot of those moves require explanation unless you have studied the line. Since in the Vienna move order 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Black has a playable alternative (2...Nc6) I generally preferred to head for the Frankenstein-Dracula via 2 Bc4. As 2 Bc4 is less often played than White's other reasonable choices after 1 e4 e5, it is also more likely to gain you clock time. In fact when I started to play chess again after a two-year lay-off in the early 1970s, I chose the Bishops Opening because there seemed little theory on it, and at first I answered 2...Nf6 by 3 Qe2 to avoid all theory. Then I discovered I could win a black rook... By the way, Gary Lane's 1993 book "Winning With The Bishop's Opening" does not deal with this line at all, evidently considering it to be a Vienna, but the variation is covered in "The Complete Vienna" by Tseitlin and Glazkov (1995). That has some new material but in many cases in this variation it adds nothing to what I published in my 1976 book on the Vienna, and the 1986 one by Konstantinopolsky and Lepeshkin. (Of course theory tends to change slower in unfashionable openings than it does in the Sicilian, for example.) After 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Black has a wide choice of moves (3...Nc6 for example) but is often tempted to play 3...Nxe4 because the fork 4 Nxe4 d5 is pretty clearly good for him. A British player, Graham Lee, insisted to me many times that 4 Bxf7+ is a good move here; although the theory books say otherwise, because it gives Black the bishop pair as well as an extra central pawn, he got good results with it in practice. However, this Kibitzer article is concerned with the move 4 Qh5 which used to surprise many of my opponents in the 1970s. Not only does White threaten

checkmate in one move, he also threatens Qxe5+ and Nxe4. Black has only one move: he has to play 4...Nd6 although it blocks his d-pawn and thus hinders his queenside development. On the other hand, Black does gain a tempo by attacking the bishop. White has two choices here: try to bore his opponent to death by Qxe5+ or retreat the bishop to b3, maintaining the pressure against f7. This is where psychology comes in. If you have good reason to think you have surprised your opponent then 5 Bb3 is the right move but 5 Qxe5+ is not without merit, especially against opponents who relish tactics and have prepared the Frankenstein-Dracula for Black but may not be so comfortable in the semi-ending that arises after 5 Qxe5+ Qe7 6 Qxe7+ Bxe7 and now Ulf Andersson's flexible move 7 Be2! (Most books give only 7 Bb3.) Grandmaster Andersson recommended this to me when I showed him the line at the 1972 Teesside international tournament in England and 12 years later I finally employed 7 Be2 with success. Of course Dracula (who plays Black in my story about this variation) and the Frankenstein Monster would not be seen undead playing moves like 5 Qxe5+ so the main line continues 5 Bb3 Nc6 (offering the pawn back by 5...Be7 is another story, which can be told next month). Now there is probably only one good move for White although Tseitlin and Glazkov had a shot at rehabilitating the Weaver Adams' gambit 6 d4?!. After one loss with that, I decided that 6 Nb5! is a must. White threatens checkmate in two moves and if the knight is captured then it is mate on the move. Black must defend his f7-pawn and doing so by 6...Qe7 allows White to play 7 Nxc7+ etc., winning the rook in the corner under more favourable circumstances than in the main line. As this cannot be postponed indefinitely, Black tries to gain time and space by 6...g6 7 Qf3 (renewing the threat) 7...f5 (I know of no good case for 7...f6) 8 Qd5 (threatening mate yet again) and now the rook must die, 8...Qe7 9 Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8. The final move to the diagram is 10...b6, best because it prepares ...Bb7 so that Black is only sacrificing the exchange instead of a whole rook. White has a wide choice at move 11. He could even play 11 Nxb6 to have an extra pawn as well as the exchange, but generally speaking I prefer to let Black expend a tempo with the bishop to eat it on a8, and in most lines there is an opportunity of playing Nxb6 later in reply to ...Bb7. White's traditional moves in this line, therefore, were 11 Qf3 or 11 Nf3 (or 11 d4 Bb7 12 Nf3 which comes to the same) but Black has generally got ample compensation in these lines. Instead of opening the centre, White should aim to complete his development, usually by castling queenside eventually, while of course keeping the queen alive. The plan for White which revived the whole line was discovered independently by American master Santasiere and the Danish postal master Julius Nielsen and it was Nielsen's games in the 5th Correspondence World Championship which really made an impression on me.

From the diagram, White nowadays usually continues 11 d3 Bb7 12 h4 (Threatening Bg5 in order to prepare the queen's retreat) 12...f4 (12...h6 can be played but generates less counterplay.) 13 Qf3 Nd4 14 Qg4!, improving on the old line 14 Qh3. DIAGRAM after 14 Qg4. The threat is to exchange queens can be prevented by 14...Bh6 when 15 Nh3 as in Nielsen-Altshuler (see Kibitzer 1) should be answered by 15...Rf8! with dangerous counterplay according to Tseitlin and Glazkov. However their analysis, and that of John Nunn, suggests that White gets some advantage by 15 Bd2 instead. After 15...e4 16 0-0-0 e3 17 fxe3 Nxb3+ 18 axb3 fxe3 19 Be1 e2+ 20 Rd2 Bxa8 (one of Nunn's lines) Tseitlin and Glazkov recommend 21 Nxe2 instead of 21 Nf3 (Suder-Kanonowicz, Polish Cor Ch 1993). In practice 14...Bg7 has usually been played in recent games. The problem for Black is that he is not only behind on material, but also his king is permanently stuck in the centre: good for an ending maybe, but if White can castle then he can go on the offensive and it only takes one miscalculation to leave your position in ruins in the Frankenstein-Dracula. I don't claim the following is a great game but it does show how things can go badly wrong for Black: E. Kuipers - F. Verduyn World Under 16 Champ, Duisburg 1992 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nxe4 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 g6 7 Qf3 f5 8 Qd5 Qe7 9 Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8 b6 11 d3 Bb7 12 h4 f4 13 Qf3 Nd4 14 Qg4 Bg7 15 Bd2 N6f5 16 0-0-0 h5 17 Qxg6 Nxb3+ 18 axb3 Nxh4 19 Rxh4! Rh6 20 Bb4 d6 21 Bxd6 Rxg6 22 Bxe7+ Kxe7 23 Nc7 a6 24 c4 Rxg2 25 Nd5+ Bxd5 26 cxd5 Rxf2 27 Rxh5 e4 28 dxe4 Bxb2+ 29 Kb1 Bc3 30 d6+ 1-0. White's knight even escaped from the corner: a good argument for not playing Nxb6. My happy point-gathering days with the Frankenstein-Dracula were briefly threatened when John Nunn found 13...Bh6 (instead of ...Nd4) and used it to defeat Curt Hansen in the 1974 student olympiad (see Kibitzer 1) but improvements were found for White (basically 14 Bd2!) so that Black returned to 13...Nd4 in the important NBC-25 correspondence tournament held early in this decade. In three games, with the two strongest Dutch postal masters (Timmerman and van Oosterom) playing Black, White secured only two draws. Those were both played by Terje Wibe of Norway, and featured the variation 13...f4 14 Qg4 again. Timmerman played 14...Bg7 while van Oosterom preferred 14... Bxa8. However, it seems these games are not the last word because Timmerman (the world's highest rated correspondence player) subsequently lost in the variation when he tried to repeat his line in a 1993 Dutch league match. M. Okkes - Timmerman, Amstelveen-Volmac2, 1993

1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nxe4 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 g6 7 Qf3 f5 8 Qd5 Qe7 9 Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8 b6 11 d3 Bb7 12 h4 f4 13 Qf3 Nd4 14 Qg4 Bg7 15 Bd2 15 Nxb6 axb6 16 Bd2 led to a draw in the Wibe-Timmerman game. 15...Bxa8 16 0-0-0 In Kibitzer 1, we looked at Carleton-Tait where White won with 16 Nh3 which I have not seen repeated. Earlier 16 h5 g5 17 c3 N4f5 occurred in a 1982 postal game M.Fiorito-Timmerman, won by Black after a lot of complications. In this game White's weakness at g2 became significant. 16...Bf6 This position also occurred by transposition in Wibe-van Oosterom, where White played 17 h5. Evidently Black was hoping to follow Ekebjaerg-Timmerman, from the NBC-25 (then still in progress) in which 17 Bb4 a5 18 Bxd6 Qxd6 19 Nh3 was played, following a 1970s postal game cited in my Vienna book. Black took the initiative by 19 ... Qc6 (a new move) 20 Ng5 a4! 21 Bc4 b5! and went to win a splendid game against his very strong opponent: 22 Nf7+ Kc7 23 Nxh8 Bxh8 24 h5! g5! 25 c3 bxc4 26 cxd4 cxd3+ 27 Kb1 Qc2+ 28 Ka1 a3! 29 Rb1 Be4! 30 Qd1 exd4! 31 Qf1! d6! 32 f3 Bf5 33 Qc1 d2 34 Qxc2+ Bxc2 35 Rhd1 d3! 36 Rxd2 Kb6! 0-1. Okkes played a different move and won rapidly: 17 Re1 Qg7 18 Kb1 h5 19 Qh3 N6f5 20 Ne2 Nxe2 21 Rxe2 Nxh4 22 g3!? DIAGRAM White levers open the position and creates huge complications. Here Black can consider 22...Bf3 and 22...Bg2 among other moves and I expect he ran very short of time. 22... Nf3 23 Bc3 Ng5 24 Qh2 Bxh1 25 gxf4! Probably Black expected Qxh1; now the position blows up in his face. 25... Bf3 26 fxe5 Qf8 27 exf6 Qc5 28 Re5 Qc7 29 Qf4 1-0 The finish is quite impressive but I wouldn't bet much money on White if somebody else plays the Frankenstein-Dracula against Timmerman in a top-level postal tournament. So the variation is still very much open. Moreover, the following game shows a Swedish GM in trouble against a lower-rated opponent in one of White's lesser lines. R. Raud (2365) - Jonny Hector Rilton Cup, Stockholm 1996 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nxe4 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 g6 7

Qf3 f5 8 Qd5 Qe7 9 Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8 b6 11 Qf3 Bb7 12 h4 (Tseitlin and Glazkov recommend 12 d3 Nd4 13 Qh3 here.) 12...Bg7 (According to theory, 12...Nd4 13 Qh3 Bxa8 is good for Black.) 13 Qh3 e4 14 Ne2 Bxa8 15 0-0 Bf6 16 d3 Bxh4 17 Bf4 Bf6 18 Bxd6 Qxd6 19 dxe4 fxe4 20 Rad1 Qe7 21 Nf4 Bxb2 22 c3 Re8 23 Rxd7+ Qxd7 24 Rd1 Qxd1+ 25 Bxd1 Re7 26 Qh6 Ke8 27 Nxg6 hxg6 28 Qh8+ Kd7 29 Qxa8 and White won in 60 moves. The fact that a grandmaster can go wrong so quickly in this Frankenstein-Dracula Variation, even in a line supposedly very bad for White, shows how difficult it is to play, and how it can really earn points for a player who studies it and knows what he is doing! * If you want to enter the ICCF thematic tournament on the Frankenstein-Dracula, it is theme 10, due to start in September and entries have to be with your national CC organisation by the end of July. If you live in a country without a correspondence chess federation, contact Mr Tani on: tani@torino.alpcom.it. The Kibitzer by Tim Harding Putting Dracula Back in His Coffin Last month's Kibitzer column dealt with the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation of the Vienna; in this promised follow-up we look to see how White should play if Black avoids the most blood-curdling variations. After 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 (or 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3) 3...Nxe4 4 Qh5 White has broken the rule taught to all beginners, not to bring the queen out early. The main justification for doing so is that the forced reply 4...Nd6 makes the black knight obstruct its own d-pawn. Black's resulting difficulties in developing his queenside are a recurring theme in this variation. However, after 4...Nd6 5 5...Nc6 which, as we saw exchange (sometimes even can play the calmer (but Diagram) Bb3 Black need not play the move last month, is in effect a sacrifice of the the offer of a whole rook). Instead he not necessarily superior) 5...Be7. (See

From the diagram position, therefore, White's options are 6 Qxe5 and 6 Nf3, the latter being superficially the more dynamic. The most immediate difference from the Frankenstein-Dracula main line is that instead of trying to defend his extra pawn, Black makes a kingside developing move that rules out the main complications. Whereas 5...Nc6 led to a long forcing sequence after 6 Nb5, there is little point in 6 Nb5 now. Admittedly, the knight is still invulnerable on account of 6...Nxb5?? 7 Qxf7 checkmate, and 6...g6 is ineffective because 7 Qxe5 threatens the h8-rook with check, but Black can simply castle -after which White has nothing better than 8 Nxd6 with a deficit in development and no problems for Black. I think one of the main reasons that the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation is not more popular for White is that it seems to require a

schizophrenic style shift: White must be equally prepared for colossal complications after 5...Nc6 or peaceful symmetry after 5...Be7 6 Qxe5. Few players, perhaps, are equally happy in both types of position. Just as the possibility 5 Qxe5+ is not entirely innocuous, it is not entirely certain that 6 Qxe5 will lead to a quick draw. After 6...0-0 7 d4 Nc6 8 Qf4 White retains some initiative since Black's queenside development is not straightforward. The queen is well placed here to exert some pressure without being attacked by Black's minor pieces. The book recipe for Black now is to develop his queen's bishop in a fianchetto, at b7 or a6. Tseitlin and Glazkov's book "The Complete Vienna" says that 8...b6 9 Nge2 Ba6 10 Be3 Nc4 11 0-0-0 d5 "led to approximate equality" in McCormick-Hartels, Omaha 1959. Two recent Polish games continued similarly, but with 11...N6a5 12 h4 d5. Now look at what happened in the second of these. R. Suder - W. Drygalski, Sponsorow 1995: 13 Ng3! White improves on the drawn game Suder-Bielak, Jurajski 1994, in which he had played 13 Qf3. 13...Nxb3+ 14 axb3 Nxe3 15 fxe3 Bc8 16 e4 Be6 17 Nf5 c6 18 exd5 cxd5 19 Nxe7+ Qxe7 20 g4 Rfc8 21 g5 a5 22 Qe5 Qc7 23 Rd2 Ra7 23...Qxe5 24 dxe5 had to be tried despite the weak d-pawn and the fact that the N has good central squares. 24 Qe3 Qc6 25 h5 Re8 26 Qf3 Rf8 27 Rg2 Kh8 28 h6 Black didn't find a good defensive plan and is kingside is now cracked open. 28...f5 29 g6! Rf6 30 hxg7+ Rxg7 31 Rxh7+ Rxh7 32 gxh7 Qd6 33 Ne2 Kxh7 34 Nf4 Rh6 35 Qg3 Qf8 36 Nh3 Kh8 37 Qe5+ 1-0. This system for White was recommended almost half a century ago by U.S. Master Weaver Adams in his "White to Play and Win" book, or I should say in some editions of it. (Does anyone have a copy to spare?) If Black plays 8...b5 instead of 8...b6, then a game circulating in databases nowadays is J.Koch-Chabanon, Nantes 1993. White lost after 9 a3 which only encouraged Black to take a queenside initiative. Instead White can follow the Adams formula by 9 Nf3 Bb7 10 Be3 Na5 11 0-0-0 with some advantage (Adams-Lyman, Boston 1945). In the 10th edition of "Modern Chess Openings" Larry Evans preferred Black after 11...b4 (Lyman played Nxb3+) 12 Ne2 Ndc4 but Weaver Adams and Berliner said White had the edge. Finally in this sub-variation, if Black wants to develop his bishop "normally" he must move the knight again: 7...Ne8 8 Nge2 c6 9 d5! d6 10 Qf4 Nf6 11 h3 and White achieved an advantage in Adams-Gates, Boston 1945.

So it seems that White has slight chances of an advantage with 6 Qxe5 but I don't think there is much doubt that the Frankenstein Monster would have played 6 Nf3 in the first diagram position. The other possibility, 6 d3, is unsound after 6...Nc6! (See Diagram) (Position after 5...Be7 6 Nf3) The options for Black after 6 Nf3 are to castle into an attack, or to defend the e-pawn. After 6...0-0 the obvious 7 Nxe5 is certainly playable, but most attention has been given to the macho move 7 h4!?, which keeps cropping up in this variation! This is really a fun line to play and analyse. What a pity it cannot be forced! The classic example Gufeld-Tarve, Tallinn 1969, now went 7...Nc6 (7...g6 8 Qxe5 Bf6 9 Qf4 Re8+ 10 Kf1 Bg7 11 d4 Nc6 12 h5 b6 13 hxg6 was good for White in Roitov-Malevinsky, Leningrad 1960) 8 Ng5 h6 and now, as so often in open games, winning material is a mistake. In Klaman-Nezhmetdinov, Baku 1951, Black took over the initiative after 9 Nce4 Nxe4 10 Bxf7+ Rxf7 11 Qxf7+ Kh8 12 Nxe4 d5 and soon won. So Gufeld improved by 9 Qg6 Bxg5 10 hxg5 Qxg5 11 Qxg5 hxg5 12 Nd5 (More accurate than 12 d3) 12...Nf5 13 d3 and now 13...d6 led to a draw in the very unconvincing game Szewczyk-Zalachowski, cor 1974, but the usual move is 13...Ncd4 reaching the critical position of the next diagram. (See Diagram) Gufeld now won by 14 Bxg5?! Nxb3 (If 14...a5 Tseitlin & Glazkov recommend 15 g4! Nxb3 16 axb3 f6 17 gxf5 fxg5 18 Rg1 or 18 Nxc7 with some advantage) 15 Nf6+ gxf6 16 Bxf6 Ng7 17 axb3 Re8 18 g4 Re6 19 g5 b6? 20 Ke2 e4 21 d4 e3 22 f3 d5 23 Rh4 Ba6+ 24 c4! dxc4 25 Rah1 c3+ 26 Ke1 1-0. This attacking idea continues to catch Black unawares, e.g. 13...g4 14 Bg5 Ncd4 15 Nf6+ gxf6 16 Bxf6 Ng7 17 Kd2 Nde6 (17...d6 18 Rh2+-) 18 Rh2 Nf4 19 Rah1 Ng6 20 Rh7 1-0 Leconte-Viot, FIDE Paris open 1994. The problem with this line is that it is unsound! At least two books have published the refutation, 19...Ra6!, but the authors didn't state categorically that White is busted so I am doing that now. Surely the last diagram position cannot be bad for White? However, as I stated in my book on the Vienna 20 years ago, 14 g4?! fails to 14...c6! 15 Nc7 Nxb3 (not 15...Rb8 16 gxf5 d5 17 f6 or 17 Bd2, with chances for both sides) 16 axb3 Nd4 17 Kd1 d6! and now it's awkward for White as 18 Nxa8 is met by 18...Bxg4+. It seems to me that White should just play 14 Nxc7 which is prosaic but good, meeting 14...Rb8 by either 15 Bxg5 or 15 c3. White restores material equality by picking up either the a7-pawn or the g5-pawn and the resulting position with his rooks controlling

the open files is rather promising. I am sure White has seen this in the previous games but didn't select the move as he wanted to play for mate! In view of this, Black is right to answer 6 Nf3 by 6...Nc6, when Alekhine refuted 7 0-0 by 7...g6 8 Qh3 (8 Qg4 h5!) 8...Nf5 9 g4 Nfd4 10 Bh6 Bf8! against Jaffe back at Karlsbad 1911. So White has nothing better than to meet 6...Nc6 by 7 Nxe5, a line employed successfully by Alekhine (as White) in the 27th game of his 1935 World Championship match. (See Diagram) Euwe carelessly replied 7... Nxe5? and found it is not so simple to equalise: 8 Qxe5 0-0 9 Nd5! Re8 10 0-0 Bf8 11 Qf4 c6 12 Ne3 Qa5 13 d4 Qh5 14 c3 Ne4 15 f3! (Preventing the freeing move ...d5) 15...Ng5 16 d5! cxd5 17 Nxd5 Ne6 18 Qg4 Qg6 19 Be3 b6 20 Rad1 Bb7 21 Qxg6 and after slips by both sides, White eventually won. Nothing has happened since to change the assessment of this line. Back at the last diagram, Alekhine stated that 7...0-0 8 Nd5 Nd4! (8...g6 9 Nxg6! and 8...Nxe5 are inferior.) 9 0-0 Nxb3 10 axb3 Ne8 would be about equal. Here Larsen suggested 11 Qe2! with the point 11...Nf6 (11...Bf6 has also been seen.) 12 Nc6! dxc7 13 Nxe7+ Kh8 14 Nxc8 Qxc8 15 d3 but this is the sort of position that Larsen can win in 80 moves while everybody else gives up trying and offers a draw in 25. While it is not proven that White has much here, it may not be an attractive line for Black to defend against somebody who is good at endgames. Nowadays the main line is reckoned to be 7...g6, when if White plays 8 Nxc6 dxc6 he has solved Black's main problem in the variation: the development of the c8-bishop. He has doubled the c-pawns but this is hardly enough? As Black is about to gain tempi against the white queen, the strategic retreat 9 Qd1 seems called for but I see no advantage for White. The sad truth seems to be that, so far as the Vienna is concerned, the era of heroes and monsters has given way to rational defence and in 1998 White cannot hope to get more than the faintest of microscopic advantages after 5...Be7, 6...Nc6 if Black knows what he is doing. If White wants to play 3 Bc4, he must forget about romantic mating attacks in the Gufeld-Tarve mould and concentrate on 6 Qxe5 which, as we saw earlier in this column, does seem to offer some prospects. Of course that won't suit Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster. A bloodless draw or long endgame is not their aim when they sit down to a game of chess. Maybe they'll have to try an Evans Gambit next time! The Kibitzer by Tim Harding The Eternal Appeal Of The Urusov Gambit

Last month's column dealt with the opening 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 and I mentioned that one option for White, after Black's normal reply 2...Nf6, is the central strike, 3 d4. I promised to come back to this, so here we are. I got onto the Internet, around New Year 1996, and discovered the University of Pittsburgh Archive. One of the very first things I discovered there was an article about the Urusov Gambit, which caught my eye because this was one of the little-known gambits that featured in my very first chess book, "Bishop's Opening" 25 years ago. There were several Russian chessplayers called Urusov. The gambit 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 is named after Prince Sergey Semyonovich Urusov who was born on August 3, 1827 and lived until November 20, 1897 (old-style calendar, I think). (See Diagram) Sergey Urusov, who became a Major-General in the Army, was the elder brother of another strong player, Dmitry Urusov (1829-1903). Interestingly, the Soviet Chess Encyclopaedia describes Sergey as a friend of Tolstoy and an originator of new ideas in various classical open games including the King's Gambit and the Scotch. Unfortunately games of his with the gambit do not appear to have survived. Dmitry is described as a player of positional style - and a friend of the writer Turgenev! (In a later generation, but not mentioned in the Encyclopaedia, was N. Urusov who played at least one correspondence game against Alekhine in the first decade of the 20th century.) A number of players seemed interested in reviving this gambit, but the file posted at Pittsburgh in those days was a textfile not easily converted to PGN. Later, when I started my website, one of the people behind that article, Max Burkett, contacted me but I was too busy at the time to look further into the gambit. Now I see that a zipfile of Urusov games is available to download from there in Chessbase or PGN formats. It includes quite a few relatively recent games that show there is a lot of interest in this gambit among amateurs now. However the quality of the data is not that reliable, to judge from the following miniature. Burkett,M - Lawless,K Mechanics Institute Weekly, San Francis, 1977 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 d5 5 exd5 Bb4+ 6 Kf1 c5 7 a3 Ba5 8 b4 Bb6 9 bxc5 Bxc5 10 Nxd4 Nxd5 11 Nb3 1-0?? I don't understand this being given as a White win in the Pitt database, since 11...Ne3+ wins at once for Black. The Urusov Gambit is actually an interesting challenge for analysts and a good training ground for players wanting to improve their understanding of tactics. My main analysis of the critical line will come next month, but I want to give now one example of what it is all about.

Let us look at one of the classic White successes with this gambit. Schlechter v Neustadtl & Tietz, consultation game, Carlsbad 1901 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Bg5 c6 7...Nc6 is also an important line, as we shall see in the October Kibitzer. 7...0-0 might seem attractive but the Russian analyst and correspondence master remarks thar "Black determines prematurely the position of his king" - Neishtadt. We shall see next month that castling queenside can also be an important option in this gambit. 8 0-0-0 d5 9 Rhe1 9 Qh4 Be6 10 Bd3 Nbd7 11 Nd4 Nc5 12 Rhe1 is an alternative move order but it doesn't give Black the opportunity of falling into the trap seen in the present game. 9...0-0 9...Be6 10 Bd3 (or 10 Qh4 Nbd7 transposing) 10...Nbd7 11 Qh4 Nc5 12 Nd4 is the other classical Urusov Gambit position for analysis. 10 Qh4 (See Diagram) White sets up a pin on the d-file and prepares kingside threats later. Now we have the central mystery of the Urusov Gambit. White is a pawn done, apparently for next to nothing. He has no central pawns, no structural advantage of any kind. If anything, the d-pawn means that Black in the long run will have more space. Compare this with the King's Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4), where he gets a majority of central pawns and can expect to regain the f4-pawn at some stage, or even the Evans Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3) where at least we see White gaining time by attacking a displaced piece. So in what does White's compensation consist? It seems to be strictly a matter of piece activity and open lines, so White must play very actively and precisely to force a concession fine a short time before Black can catch up on development. That is part of the appeal of the Urusov Gambit. In this way, it rather resembles a very modern gambit (The Belgrade Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 Nd5) where again White relies entirely on time and tactics. How Black can easily go wrong, we are now about to see. 10...h6? 10...Be6 is correct, as we shall see next month.

White now immediately exploited Black's slip by a fine combination. 11 Bxd5! With one blow, White regains his gambit pawn, takes out his opponent's central bastion and opens the d-file. Black cannot accept the piece sacrifice because if a) 11...hxg5? 12 Bxf7+ Kxf7 (if 12...Rxf7 then 13 Rxd8 is check.) 13 Nxg5+ with a strong attack and no material deficit. b) 11...cxd5 12 Nxd5! with decisive geometry. 11...Nbd7 12 Bc4 b5 13 Bd3 hxg5 Else Black will have no material as consolation for White's very strong attack. 14 Nxg5 Re8 15 Bh7+ Kf8 16 Bf5! Kg8 17 Nxf7! Kxf7 18 Be6+ Kg6 19 f4 Nh5 The only move. Now, amazingly after his brilliant play, Schlechter overlooked a forced mate in 5! He played 20 Qg4+? and took 49 moves to win. He could have produced a worthy finish by 20 Bf5+! Kf7 (20...Kxf5 21 g4+ Kxf4 22 Rf1+) 21 Qxh5+ g6 (21...Kf8 22 Be6) 22 Qh7+ Kf8 23 Qh8+ Kf7 24 Be6#. (Note that the second player on the Black side was not Mieses, as the Pitt database would have you believe. If Mieses had been playing, Schlechter might not have had such an easy time.) That is all about the main line until next month, as I need to prepare those of you who may want to play the Urusov Gambit for some early divergences that you could meet. Next month's column, to be entitled "Is The Urusov Gambit Sound?", will study the 4...Nxe4 lines in detail. So if you have played interesting examples please send them in during the next fortnight! The main problem for players who want to try the Urusov Gambit is that you must find someone willing to defend it, as Black can circumvent the gambit in various ways. Now let us look, in a more analytical way, at the introductory moves to the Urusov Gambit, following 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4. (See Diagram) In this position, you can Black to play 3...exd4 although it is not forced. The alternatives are 3....d5, 3...Nc6, 3...c6!? and 3...Nxe4. These are not really germane to the main theme so let's get them out of the way quickly a) 3...d5 was suggested as playable by the late David Hooper in his "A Complete Defence to 1 P-K4" but it looks like a luxury Black should not be able to afford. Tartakower-von Scheve, Barmen 1905, continued 4 dxe5 Nxe4 5 Bxd5 Ng5 6 Bxg5 Qxg5 7 Nf3

Qh5 8 Nc3 Be7 9 h3 c6 10 Bb3 0-0 11 Qe2 Na6 12 Ne4 Nc5 13 Nxc5 Bxc5 14 0-0-0 b5 15 g4 Qg6 16 Nd2 Be6 17 f4 Bxb3 18 Nxb3 Be7 19 h4 Qe6 20 f5 Qc8 21 Qf3 c5 22 f6 Bd8 23 fxg7 Re8 24 Rhf1 Qe6 25 Nxc5 Qxa2 26 e6 f6 27 Qxa8 Qa1+ 28 Kd2 Qxb2 29 Qd5 Ba5+ 30 Ke3 Bb6 31 Kf3 Qc3+ 32 Nd3 Qxc2 33 Qd7 1-0. b) If 3...Nc6, don't choose 4 Bxf7+?! as Sir George Thomas v Milner-Barry, Hastings 1938, shows: 4... Kxf7 5 dxe5 Nxe5 6 f4 Nc6 7 e5 d5 8 exf6 Qxf6 9 Nf3 Bb4+ 10 c3 Re8+ 11 Kf1 Bd6 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 Bxf3 25 Kxf3 Bxf4 26 Bxe3 Rxe3+ 27 Kf2 (27 Kxf4 Rae8) 27...Rae8 28 Rad1 Re2+ 29 Kf3 Bg5 30 Rd3 Bh4 31 Rf1 0-1 However 4 dxe5 should give White the edge, e.g. 4...Nxe5 (not 4...Nxe4? 5 Bxf7+ Kxf7 6 Qd5+) 5 Be2 where the bishop covers both wings and later the black knight, which has no central anchor point, can be pushed back by f4 or exchanged by Nf3, with gain of time in either case. An example from the Pitt database is Schaefer-Schulenburg, 1994, which went 4 dxe5 dxc4 5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 6 exf6 gxf6 7 Nc3 Bd6 8 Nge2 Rg8 9 Ng3 Bg4 10 f3 Be6 11 Be3 c6 12 0-0-0 Kc7 13 Nce2 and White's safer king and sounder pawn structure should carry more weight than Black's bishop pair. White eventually won after some complications. White has also tried 4 d5 which might suit players who like the kind of blocked centres that can also arise from the Hungarian Defence. c) 3...c6 was punished in the game Marshall-Forsberg, Dimock Theme Tournament, New York, 1924 dxe5 Qa5+ 5 Nc3 Nxe4 6 Bxf7+ Kxf7 7 Qf3+ Nf6 8 exf6 Qe5+ 9 Ne4 Bb4+ 10 Kf1 Re8 11 fxg7+ Kxg7 12 Qg4+ Kh8 13 Bg5 Be7 14 Nf3 Qb5+ 15 Kg1 d5 16 Qh5 Bd7 17 Nf6 1-0. d) The most likely of the alternatives from the diagram is 3...Nxe4 4 dxe5 when 4...Nc5 (Jaenisch) is clearly better for White. Neishtadt-Gipslis, USSR 1955, went on 5 Nf3 Be7 6 Bf4 Nc6 7 Nc3 Ne6 8 Bg3 0-0 9 Qe2 f5 10 0-0-0 Qe8 11 Nd5 Kh8 12 Nf4 a6 13 h4 Na5 14 Bxe6 dxe6 15 Ng5 Bc5 16 Rd8 Qxd8 17 Qh5 h6 18 Qg6 hxg5 19 hxg5+ Kg8 20 Qh5 Nc4 21 g6 Qd2+ 22 Kb1 Na3+ 23 bxa3 1-0. Later Gipslis became a grandmaster. Also after 3..Nxe4 4 dxe5 a line from Staunton went 4...Bc5? 5 Bxf7+ Kf8 6 Qf3. Instead of 4...Nc5 and 4...Bc5, Black can create a crude threat by 4...Qh4 but after 5 Qf3 Ng5 (Dorfman-Zilberstein, USSR 1974) Larsen recommended 6 Qf4 Qxf4 7 Bxf4 Ne6 8 Bg3 when White has a development lead and the e-pawn cramps his opponent. So, to return to the line 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4, Black normally plays 3...exd4. Then the old line for White, given by Ponziani in the 18th century, was 4 e5 but I am not interested in that; it is clearly time-wasting and anti-positional. Simply 4...d5 is a good reply.

The move for White to play is Sergey Urusov's true innovation, 4 Nf3 (See Diagram). This position can also arise via the Petroff Defense, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4 (instead of 4 e5), but in practice it is rare to get it via that route because Black almost invariably plays the fashionable 3...Nxe4 in that case. Now 4...Nxe4, in the diagram position, 5 Qxd4! is the Urusov Gambit Accepted. This is Black's second and last chance to decline it. It is important to realise that you have to be ready to meet the Two Knights Defence, because Black may well (and often does) simply play 4...Nc6 here. You can reply 5 0-0 or 5 e5, according to taste, or maybe the less favoured 5 Ng5, but anyway that line is beyond the scope of this article. However, if you know your opponent normally meets 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 by 3...Bc5 (or 3...Be7 or 3...d6) rather than 3...Nf6, then he or she is a good bet for the Urusov. Black can also play 4...Bb4+, 4...Bc5 or 4...d5. (I have even see 4...c5?! e.g. 5 Qe2 d6 6 e5 dxe5 7 Nxe5 Be6 8 Nxf7 Qe7 9 Qxe6 1-0 Akos- Csaszar, corr 1968). The first three moves all deserve more attention. After 4...Bb4+ Euwe recommended 5 c3 dxc3 6 bxc3 intending 7 e5 with good chances; Larsen added the note 6...Ba5 7 e5 Qe7 8 Ba3. However, a Burkett-Malmstrom IECG game saw 6....d5! So I suspect the correct answer is the real gambit style 6 0-0! which has been played the masters Horowitz and Acers. See the Pitt database for examples. As for 4...Bc5, this brings us close to Italian game territory. White usually plays 5 0-0. In that case, Black can transpose to the Max Lange Attack by 5...Nc6 or play other moves such as 5...d6 (which might be met by 6 b4!?). However, there is an alternative in 5 e5 (relatively little investigated) when the critical line goes 5...d5 (White has been winning regularly against knight moves.) 6 exf6 dxc4 7 Qe2+ Be6 8 fxg7 Rg8 9 Bg5 Qd5 (9...Be7 also needs analysis) with a position rather like a Max Lange except that Black has not played ...Nc6. (See Diagram) Now there was a 1988 correspondence game Vavrovski-Stieg which went 10 Nbd2 from the diagram; Black won. White should analyse an old Euwe suggestion of 10 Nc3!? intending 0-0-0. If Black accepts the sacrifice by 10...dxc3 11 Rd1 cxb2 (11...Bxf2+ 12 Kf1!) then 12 0-0 b1Q 13 Rxd5 seems to be winning for White. So 5 e5 is definitely worth following up. Finally, there is 4...d5 of which I have personal experience. This gives good open tactical play where White should hold the initiative although it must be possible for Black to defend better than in the following game.

Tim Harding - J. Boyce Woolacombe, 1973 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5? I also once met 5...c5?! 6 0-0 Nxd5 (6...Bg4 7 c3!) 7 c3 Nc6 (7...Nb6!?) 8 Qb3 Na5 9 Bb5+ with some advantage to White (Harding-Risdon, corr 1987). 5...Bb4+ is the critical line6 Bd2!? was once suggested to me by Max Zavanelli, and has been successfully tried. However, 6 c3 is probably strong6...Qe7+ 7 Be2 (7 Kf1 is about equal.) 7...dxc3 8 bxc3 Bc5 9 0-0 0-0 and now 10 Bg5! (Instead of 10 c4= as given in ECO) 10...h6 11 Bh4 Rd8 12 Re1 g5 13 Bc4 Be6 14 Nxg5! Ng4 15 Nf3 Qd6 16 h3! Rd7 17 hxg4 f6 18 Qc1 1 0 P.Grave-P.Zaiser, West Germany - USSR corr match 1965-67. 6 0-0 Nc6?! 6...Be7 is probably better. 7 Re1+ Be7 8 Nxd4 Nxd4?! 9 Qxd4 Be6 10 Qxg7 Bf6 11 Qh6 Rg8 12 Nc3! After this the game is fun only for White! 12...Nxc3 13 bxc3 13 Bxe6? Ne2+! 13...Bxc3? 13...Rg6 14 Qxh7 also wins for White. 14 Rxe6+! fxe6 If 14...Kd7 15 Qh3! wins. 15 Qxe6+ Qe7 16 Qxg8+ Kd7 17 Qd5+ Ke8 18 Bg5 c6 19 Qg8+ Qf8 20 Qe6+ 1-0 Copyright 1998 Tim Harding. All Rights Reserved. The Kibitzer by Tim Harding Is The Urusov Gambit Sound? Having dealt last month with preliminary digressions from the main move order, it is time now to examine the position arising from 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 (or 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4) 4...Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Bg5 (See Diagram) Black has two (very different) principal defenses to the gambit: 7...c6 followed by...d5 to occupy the centre and, in some cases, castle queenside; 7...Nc6 followed by...d6, trying to catch up on development to neutralise the white initiative.

Black can of course castle at once by 7...0-0 but this generally transposes to lines below. By committing his king so early, Black loses flexibility and makes it easier for White to decide on his plan. The line 7...c6 8 0 0 0 d5 was introduced in last month's Kibitzer. Even at move 9, castling may be premature for Black. Last month we saw the consultation game Schlechter versus Neustadtl and Tietz, in which Black defended by 9 Rhe1 0-0 10 Qh4 h6? overlooking a powerful combination, 11 Bxd5!. Black does have other tenth moves here, but they have been little explored: a) 10...Bf5 seems good for White; it is covered in the final game of this article. b) 10...Nbd7 is inferior as after 11 Bd3 Black cannot transpose back to main lines because his queen's bishop is hemmed in. Now 11...h6?! is risky because of 12 Bxh6 gxh6 (12...Ne4? 13 Qg4), a trick which would not be possible if Black had not castled. After 13 Qxh6 Re8 14 Ng5 (14 Re3) 14...Nf8 15 Re3 White has a dangerous attack; even if it is not quite clear; I doubt if you would like to be the defender here! So after 10...Nbd7 11 Bd3 the move 11...g6 has been tried: 12 Ne5 Nc5! Mieses-von Holzhausen, Duisburg 1929. The best reply seems to be 12 Re2! when White is clearly better, according to Keres (12 Nd4!? was another Keres suggestion), e.g. 12...Re8 13 Rde1 Ne4 14 Nxe4 dxe4 15 Rxe4 was the end of my old notes, but ECO has a pretty line credited to GM Larry Evans continuing 15...f6 (15...Bxg5+ 16 Nxg5+-) 16 Bc4+ Kg7 17 Qxh7+! Kxh7 18 Rh4+ Kg7 19 Bh6+ Kh7 20 Bf8 mate. c) 10...Be6 11 Bd3 h6 (11...g6 12 Nd4) is a line which has now been refuted. Virtually all the games in my database were played by computers, so evidently this is a line that programmers have been putting into the openings books of their creations, primarily trying to catch out other computers! White has to decide where to put the queen. White is virtually forced to sacrifice the bishop by 12 Bxh6 and since 12...gxh6 13 Qxh6 is hopeless for Black, the critical reply is 12...Ne4. Old analysis (e.g. by Keres and the late David Hooper) concentrated on 13 Qf4 but it now seems that 13 Qh5! does the business for White. Then 13...Nxc3? would lose rapidly to the thematic 14 Bxg7! so there are two main lines: c1) 13...gxh6 14 Bxe4 Nd7 15 Bf5 Nf6 16 Qh3 Bxf5 17 Qxf5 and White has a favourable position (safer king, no weaknesses) without any material disadvantage; and c2) 13...g6 14 Qe5 Bf6 15 Qf4 with tremendous complications that readers can enjoy analysing for themselves, e.g. 15...Nxc3 16 Rxe6 fxe6 17 Qg4 Nxa2+ 18 Kb1 Rf7 19 Kxa2 Kh8 20 Qxg6 Qg8 (20...Qa5+ 21 Kb1 Qb4 22 Bg7+! Rxg7 23 Qe8+ and wins) 21 Qh5 and White should soon regain the sacrificed exchange with a very good game. In view of lines like this, Black normally defers castling to keep White guessing about where the king will go. From the first diagram, play is more likely to continue 7...c6 8 0 0 0 d5 9 Rhe1 (9 Qh4 almost always transposes, e.g....Be6 10

Bd3 Nbd7 11 Nd4 Nc5 12 Rhe1 reaching the next diagram position) 9...Be6 (Not 9...dxc4?? 10 Qxd8 mate!) 10 Qh4 (or 10 Bd3 Nbd7 transposing) 10...Nbd7 11 Bd3 Nc5 12 Nd4 which brings about another position for analysis. (See Diagram) In my 1970s book on the Bishop's Opening, I quoted Keres as writing that White now has a threatening position but it is not clear whether he can force more than the return of his pawn. I gave this position to Chessbase 7.0 to try its new Opening Report feature. It found 33 games with this position in my very large (approximately 1.5 million game) reference database and the program's analysis included the following points: * White scores well (65%); * Short draws are rare (none under 20 moves); * Draws are of average length (circa 38 moves); and * Wins by both sides are shorter than average. Doing this kind of analysis, it is always important to remember that it is only "lies, damned lies and statistics". What ChessBase is doing here is just a modern version of Ulvestad's "Chess Charts" of the 1940s. The program can only work reasonably well if it is analysing a large and representative database, with games by strong players. If a game is duplicated in the database, it distorts the results. Games by weak players or decided by blunders (or on time against the run of play) are also highly misleading. Even when your database is both large and clean so that the analysis can be at its most revealing you have to remember that one strong move can be a counter-example that blows a hole in any sample based on previous play. What is most convenient about this Opening Report feature of Chessbase 7 is that it gives access to the games in your database in a convenient way. So far as moves from this position are concerned, there is little choice, since 12...h6 carries no threat and is powerfully answered by 13 Nf5!. Black must try to relieve the pressure by exchanges and 12...Nfd7 is unreliable. As the ChessBase report correctly informed me, Black "scores miserably". Tartakower's move here was 13 f4 but Estrin's plan 13 Bxe7 Qxe7 14 Qxe7+ Kxe7 15 f4! is much stronger and after 15...Nxd3+ 16 Rxde3 (Larsen even suggested 16 cxd3!? once.) Black has tried unsuccessfully: a) 16...g6 in the well-known miniature Neishtadt-Volkovich, USSR 1958. 17 g4 Nc5 18 Rde3 Kd6 19 b4 Ne4 20 Nxe4+ dxe4 21 Nxe6 fxe6 22 Rxe4 1-0. Black resigned as he cannot defend his e-pawn (22...Rae8 23 f5); and b) 16...Nc5 was seen in Hausner-Weber, 1992, which went 17 Rde3 g6 18 b4 Na6 19 Nxe6 fxe6 20 Rxe6+ Kd8 21 Re7 with the better ending for White 21...d4 22 Na4 b6 23 a3 Nc7 24 Rg7 Ne8

25 Rge7 Nd6 26 R1e6 Re8 27 Rxe8+ Nxe8 28 Rxc6 and the extra pawn was duly cashed in. 12...Kd7!? has been seen. (See Diagram) At first sight the move looks rather like desperation, even if there is no immediate refutation. However, the point is that ...h6 next move will really threaten...hxg5 because the h-pawn is not pinned (the rook being defended by the queen) and this will force White to retreat his advanced pieces or enter murky complications. If you are looking for a defence for Black this is worth investigating further, to judge from this game which you should analyse for yourself L.Lepre - U, Nyffenegger, corr, 1992 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nc3 c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9 Rhe1 Be6 10 Qh4 Nbd7 11 Bd3 Nc5 12 Nd4 Kd7!? 13 f4 (Maybe White should prefer 13 Nxe6 or 13 Bf5 h6 14 Bd2 but I see nothing forcing.) 13...h6 14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15 Qf2 Nxd3+ 16 Rxd3 g6 17 Ne4 b6 (This prevents Nc5+, after which the black king is surprisingly invulnerable in the centre.) 18 f5 gxf5 19 Nxf5 Rg8 20 c4 Rg4 21 g3 Be5 22 h3 Rxe4 23 Rxe4 Qg5+ 24 Ne3 Bxg3 25 Qf3 Rd8 26 Kc2 Ke8 27 cxd5 cxd5 28 Nxd5 Rxd5 29 Qxg3 Rc5+ 30 Kd1 Qc1+ 31 Ke2 Rc2+ 32 Kf3 Qf1+ 33 Ke3 Re2+ 34 Kd4 Qf6+ 35 Qe5 Qd8+ 36 Kc3 Qc8+ 0-1. Generally 12...Ng8 is considered the critical defence. (See Diagram) Now the double exchange on e7 is ineffective because at move 14 Black takes with the knight. It is possible to exchange only the bishops and then play (13 Bxe7 Qxe7) 14 Qg3 g6 15 Nce2 with compensation, but instead 13 f4 (not mentioned in ECO) is probably best, when: a) 13...Kf8?! 14 b4 Nxd3+ 15 Rxd3 with advantage to White (C.Torre-Tholfsen, New York 1924) was a line from my 1970s book. An old "MCO" continued 15...Qd6 here which is not entirely clear. b) In my book I said that Black can defend by 13...Bxg5 14 fxg5 Ne7 (as suggested by Pachman and approved by Larsen. This remains untested. White could then capture on h7 (intending to continue b4 and, when the knight retreats, Rxe6 followed by huge complications) but the self-pin of the bishop against the white queen is unattractive to say the least. Instead of 14...Ne7 Black may be able to get away with 14...h6 as 15 Nxe6 Nxe6 is unconvincing. I saw 16 Nxd5 in an old game Giertz-Kornetzky but it looks highly unsound! However, 15 Bg6!? is interesting with a long forced variation leading to a position that is hard to assess15...Kd7 16 Bxf7 Bxf7 17 Qg4+ Kc7 18 Qf4+ Kc8 (18...Kb6 19 Nf3!) 19 Qxf7 Qxg5+ 20 Kb1 with compensation for the pawn, but is it just enough or can White stand better? Even the young Karpov underestimated the dangers of the gambit. G.Timoschenko-Karpov, USSR Junior Ch, Moscow 1969, went 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7

Nc3 c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9 Rhe1 Be6 10 Qh4 Nbd7 11 Bd3 and now 11...c5!? 12 Ne5 Nxe5 13 Rxe5 d4 14 f4 Nd7 15 Bb5 Bxg5 16 fxg5 Qc7 17 Bxd7+ Kxd7 18 Qe4 Qc6? 19 Rxc5 and White won in 54 moves. The "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings" gives this as its main line for the Urusov, saying that White has compensation for the pawn after his18th move; however, there seem to have been no other willing takers for Karpov's 11th move. Going back to the beginning, the alternative defensive line 7...Nc6 leads to a different kind of struggle. I would tend to prefer this move as Black because it gets a piece into play whereas 7...c6 impedes development. After 8 Qh4 we get to this position: (See Diagram) The first thing to realise here is that while 8...d5 looks wrong (since the d-pawn lacks protection) this has never actually been proved. After 9 0-0-0 Be6 10 Rhe1 there are these examples: a) 10...h6 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Qh5 Bxc3? (Black may only be a little worse if he avoids this.) 13 Rxe6+ Kf8 14 Rxd5 etc. (TereschenkoRotlevi, St Petersburg 1909); b) 10...Qd7 11 Bb5 0-0 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 open, 1993. c) 10...0-0! 11 Bd3 h6 is really far from clear. In my 1970s Bishop's Opening book I incorrectly gave now 12 Rxe6 fxe6 (not 12...hxg5? 13 Nxg5 Nh5 17 Rxe7 and White does win) 13 Bxh6 "for if then 13...gxh6? 14 Qg3+ Kh8 15 Qg6 gives White a winning attack". Rubbish! as GM Bent Larsen soon pointed out to me. The correct assessment is equal, probably an immediate draw. In addition, Black can consider 13...Nb4. Also 12 Bxh6 does not work because of 12...Ne4, so after 11...h6 the game Hmelnitsky-Eventov, USSR 1956, went 12 Kb1 Qd7? 13 Bxh6 Ne4 14 Bg5 Bxg5 15 Nxg5 with a good game for White. However at move 12 Black has various possible improvements such as 12...Ne8 (Euwe) and 12...Re8 (Wallinger-Beutel, corr 1991) which need proper testing. Usually, however, Black has played 7...Nc6 with the idea of continuing 8 Qh4 d6 9 0-0-0 Be6 10 Bd3 reaching the next diagram. (See Diagram) Now if 10...h6 Neishtadt won a game in a simultaneous by 11 Bxh6 but this should only yield a draw after 11...gxh6 (11...Ng4 12 Bg5) 12 Qxh6 Ne5 13 Nxe5 dxe5 14 Qg5+ Kh8 15 Bf5 (threatening Rd3) 15...Qe8. White should therefore play 11 Rhe1 Qd7 (Euwe) 12 Bb5 0-0-0 which, back in the 1970s Larsen told me was unclear. However, Black can easily get massacred in practice: E.Svensson-H.Tolksdorf European master class corr. 1973 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Bg5 Nc6 8 Qh4 d6 9 0-0-0 Be6 10 Bd3 h6 11 Rhe1 Qd7 12 Bb5 0-0-0

13 Qa4 Nd5? 14 Rxd5! Bxg5+ (Or 14...hxg5 15 Nd4 Bxd5 16 Nxd5 Bf6 17 Bxc6 1-0 J.Uschold-M.Wallinger, West German corr 1985.) 15 Rxg5 hxg5 16 Nd4 Rdg8 17 Nxc6 bxc6 18 Bxc6 Qe7 19 Qxa7 1-0. From the diagram, the main line is 10...Qd7 which allows the pin 11 Bb5. Now Black has to give up the idea of queenside castling because the white queen can switch wings in a mirror of the kind of attacks that take place on the kingside in other variations: 11...00-0? 12 Qa4 a6 13 Bxa6 bxa6 14 Qxa6+ Kb8 but now not 15 Nb5 (Keres) 15...Nd5; however, 15 Be3! seems quite promising. So after 10...Qd7 11 Bb5 comes 11...0-0 and now 12 Ne5 (one of the points of Bb5 in these lines) has been known since a 1924 British postal game Griffith-MacDonald. However 12...Qc8 13 Nxc6 bxc6 is an improvement. Then 14 Bxc6 (14 Bd3!?) when: a) 14...Rb8 15 Ne4 Qd8 16 Rd3 Kh8 17 Nxf6 Bxf6 (17...gxf6?? 18 Be4+-1-0 Matrisch-Ninkovic, corr 1973) 18 Bxf6 with a slight advantage to White; b) 14...h6 15 Bd2 [15 f4 hxg5 16 fxg5 Nh7!] 15...Rb8 is reckoned to be equal, following Neishtadt-Burlyaev, Candidate masters tournament, Moscow, 1958. 16 Qa4 Ng4 17 Be1 soon led to a draw. However, Estrin and Glazkov in their book "3 Double King Pawn Openings" (Chess Enterprises, 1982) suggested 17 Rdf1! Ne5 (17...Bf6 18 f4!) 18 Nd5 here. In fact, they preferred 12 Nd4 to 12 Ne5, partly because against the Keres suggestion 12...h6 they had prepared the sacrifice 13 Bxh6 gxh6 14 Qxh6 Ng4 15 Qh5. So Black should play 12...a6 following Mieses-Rubinstein, Breslau 1912, when after 13 Bd3 Black's safest course would have been 13...h6 14 Bxh6 (14 Ne4 Nd5! or 14 Nxc6 bxc6 15 Bxh6 Ng4) 14...gxh6 15 Qxh6 Nxd4 16 Qg5+ Kh8 17 Qh6+ Kg8 18 Qg5+ with perpetual check (Estrin and Glazkov). Summary Whether we take the stem position after 7 Nc3 or major subvariations from a later point, the attraction of the Urusov is clear * White scores well (65% or better) whatever Black's 7th move; * White wins are shorter than average; * Draws are rare. On top of this, consider that the gambit generally involves the kind of open tactical play which doesn't require you to be a grandmaster. Positional subtleties revolve around assessing whether White has sufficient dynamic compensation, not on whether an endgame that could arise will be decisive. The gambit can also confuse the judgment of programs like Fritz. All in all, it is a good bet below master level but remember: Preparation pays!

Until you get into the details, it is really hard to believe that the Urusov Gambit can be sound against correct defence. The first impression is that Black has made no major structural concession and should be able to catch up on development without falling into a trap. That may be true at the highest level (where the gambit is never played!) but at the level where most mortal chess players operate it has a good chance of success. Against a computer, it is probably not a good bet as they tend to be ingenious defenders, but private games against computers can help to prepare you for games with human opponents. Here is one last game, sent to me by the winner after he read the previous Kibitzer column. Juergen Zarske (Switzerland)-H. Schneider corr. 1993 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nc3 c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9 Rhe1 0-0 10 Qh4 Bf5 Unusual, but there is a precedent. 11 Nd4 Another correspondence game with the same player as Black went11 g4!? Bd7 12 Bd3 h6 13 Bxh6 Ne4 14 g5 gxh6 15 Rg1 Nxc3 16 Bh7+ Kxh7 17 Qxh6+ Kg8 18 g6 1-0 R.MercurioH.Schneider, corr. 1996. 11... Bg6 12 Bd3 Qd7 12...h6 13 Bxg6 hxg5 14 Qxg5 fxg6 15 Ne6 Ne4 16 Qxg6 Bg5+ 17 f4 gave interesting complications in Caro-Janowski, Berlin 1897 (drawn in 81 moves). 13 f4 h6 Asking for trouble! Now we get a classic Urusov Gambit sacrificial attack. 14 Bxh6 gxh6 Not 14...Bxd3 15 Bxg7! Kxg7 16 Rxe7 and Black either gets a lost ending (after 16...Qg4+) or is mated after 16...Qxe7 17 Rxd3. 15 Bxg6 fxg6 16 Qxh6 Kf7 (See Diagram) It is hard for Black to choose among the many possibilities here, as all are at least slightly worse for him. Now 17 Nf3 looks obvious but Zarske prefers another approach. 17 Ne6!? Rg8 18 g4 Qd6 19 Ne4 Exploiting the pin on the d-file, and not for the last time in this game.

19...Nxe4 20 Rxe4 Bf8 21 Ng5+ Kf6 22 Qh4 Qd7 23 Ne6+ Kf7 24 Ng5+ Kf6 25 Re5! After the repetition, White tries a new tack. 25...Na6 26 Ne4+ Kg7 27 Qf6+ Kh7 28 Ng5+ Kh6 29 Ne6 Kh7 30 Nxf8+ and Black resigned since 30...Rxf8 is met by 31 Re7+ with mate or win of the queen. (1-0) Copyright 1998 Tim Harding. All Rights Reserved.

The Campbell Report

Hard Chess
with USCF Senior Master Mark Morss

July 1999
Computerized Analysis; Rubinstein's Defense to the Max Lange
What, yet another tooth-gnashing and shirt-rending over the vexed ethical question of the computer's use to find moves in correspondence chess? No, I will not use this pulpit to sermonize upon that subject, however much I would enjoy conjuring images of the Lake of Fire that awaits the unrepentant sinner. I will offer something more practical: how to use the computer to do effective chess analysis. The Devil, you say! But we can keep our souls safe by considering the topic from a particular angle: how to use the computer to prepare openings variations, before our games ever begin. Thus we behold the death-striking image of the demon, but safely reflected, as if in a polished shield. But do not ask, pilgrim, what to do if you want to prepare a part of your openings repertoire that could be reached from the current position of an ongoing game (say, after 1. d4)! The use of chess engines to help analyze sharp variations is one of many ways computers have made a big impact on chess. I believe that virtually every strong player who is doing independent openings research is using a chess engine to help sort out tactical issues. The principal service that a chess engine provides is that it sees tactical possibilities extremely quickly. A strong player, studying a position, will sooner or later see the same tactical shots the computer sees, but the time he takes to recognize the possibilities impedes the progress of his or her analysis. Since chess analysis almost invariably requires consideration of many lines and sub-lines, the time taken to see tactics can be a significant impediment to productivity. Thus, much more can be done using computers than can be done without them. And the results will be free of rank blunders, which the analysis even of strong players not always is. The increase in productivity conferred by using a computer, if my reasoning is correct, diminishes as one's tactical abilities increase. Yet I am sure that IMs and even GMs benefit from using chess engines to help with their researches. One implication of my point about enhanced productivity is that machines shouldn't be allowed

to think about a position for very long. Relative to a human, the machine's comparative advantage is its quickness. A chess engine is unlikely to discover much after the first minute of calculation that a player would not discover from looking at the position for the same length of time. It is true that the quality, such as it is, of the machine's analysis increases with the time that it thinks, but not enough to warrant the extra use of time. It is no use having a machine to help with analysis if one doesn't understand how good analysis is done. We used to have a little circle of chess masters that would meet, here in Columbus, to analyze difficult openings variations such as 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e4 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Qxd4 7. Bxb4 Qxe4+. I noticed during our meetings that some players had a tendency to chase specific moves deeper and deeper into the game, as if an idea at move eleven could be justified by the outcome of a single strand of analysis terminating at move twenty-eight (or sometimes, so it seemed, never terminating). The obvious problem with this mode of analysis is that much can happen between move eleven and move twenty-eight. The deeper a position is, relative to the position being evaluated, the less likely it is to be relevant to the evaluation (the exception that proves the rule is a position that is deep but arises from a very forcing set of moves). Good chess analysis therefore goes broad before it goes deep, considering carefully at each stage the possible alternatives and the objective demands of the position. "We are too deep!" I was often saying during the meetings of our analytical group. When one decides to follow a certain path, one should keep in mind what the alternative, unexplored paths looked like based on one's preliminary judgments. One should generally abandon, provisionally, exploration of a path as soon as it looks worse than an earlier, as-yetunexplored alternative. If one has the self-discipline, it is best to proceed only a limited distance down any given analytical path, form a preliminary judgment or simply suspend one's judgment, then go back and follow another path a similarly short distance. When one has surveyed many paths in this limited way, it may be time to go deeper along some or all of them, but by a similar process of halting and retracing. One will thus avoid a great deal of wasted time that comes from too much consideration of excessively deep positions. A benefit of working in this way is that parallel themes and motifs will be seen in different variations, and these will inform each other. A chess engine beckons us to an entirely different style of work. The machine is ever-ready with the next move, or set of exactly two alternative moves, and our inclination is to play the next and the next and the next, until we are much too deep. Variations produced with the aid of computers therefore tend to chase specific possibilities too far, and to fail to consider good chess principles at each stage. A case in point is the book that my chessfriend Bruce Monson produced about the Belgrade Gambit -- a brilliant work that I recommend to everyone. In this original and imaginative book, Monson uses a lot of computerized analysis. I think this is why one sometimes finds that he has pursued funny, specific moves of the sort that a computer would select, while not considering simple, principled moves that would more likely be chosen by a strong player, like Monson, if he encountered the same position over-the-board. A work of such comprehensiveness and depth as Monson's, concerning such a difficult system as the Belgrade, would have been difficult to produce without computerized assistance. But the example shows

that even very good players can be led into unchesslike pathways by the wiles of chess engines. Another temptation offered by chess engines is to trust their evaluations of positions, which are mostly worthless. When using a chess engine to do analysis, one should either ignore the output of the scoring function or regard it as approximately indicative of the material balance, nothing more. Rather than just checking the machine's score and moving on, it is important to try to grasp intellectually each position that appears on the screen. One reason for this is that chess engines lack imagination. They will see amazing tactics that resolve within their horizon (every machine considers only a certain number of moves deeper into the game), but they will miss surprisingly obvious ideas that do not resolve that soon. Chess engines are notoriously unable to deal with the notion of inevitability (such as the king which must be mated on g8 because there is an unexchangeable enemy bishop on f6, no possible defense of g7, and an enemy queen that will inevitably reach h6). Long-range sacrifices are mostly beyond their ken. When a tactical idea occurs to one that the machine does not see, one should nudge the machine in that direction and help it along to the eventual result. Sometimes in those cases, the stupidity of the machine will be exasperating, and that is just one drawback of using chess engines. I have found just one useful way to use a chess engine's scoring function. If you are down material and the machine says the score is about even (other than a forced perpetual), then you have the advantage! Trust me, it is true. Another reason for keeping in mental touch with the screen position is that the moves to be considered next should generally be determined by the player, not by the machine. The machine is too much of a materialist to trust it with the selection of candidate moves. The player should rely on his or her own judgment; machines have none. Some readers may want a recommendation of a good chess engine. I am familiar only with two, Fritz 5 and Hiarcs 6. I use them both, but between the two, I prefer Hiarcs. Its thinking is more like that of a human, and so it makes a better analytical companion. Also, it seems to know more about chess in general than Fritz does. I understand that Hiarcs 7.32 works with Windows. Good. Hiarcs 6 is DOS-based (with a correspondingly ugly user interface) and causes problems with Windows 98 on my Sony laptop. One problem with Hiarcs is that it over-values rooks relative to minor pieces, so it always likes to play with a rook and pawn against knight and bishop -- often a questionable proposition. Also, it suffers from the mistaken belief that rook, bishop and pawn are generally adequate compensation for a queen. I mention these problems of material evaluation because machines are self-avowed materialists: what else are they good for, if not to win material? Having said all that, Hiarcs is still my best choice. Apropos of using chess engines to analyze sharp opening systems, a reader sent me an e-mail questioning my evaluation of an important position in my discussion of the Classical Defense to the Spanish - Part 1 (Variation 1): 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Bc5 5. Nxe5 Nxe5 6. d4 a6 7. Be2 Nxe5 8. dxc5 Nxc5 9. Qd4 d6 10. f4 Ng6 11. Qxg7 Bf5.

Position after 11...Bf5 Here I said, "This position offers Black interesting counterplay." No less an authority than Nunn's Chess Openings rules the position unclear, so I hoped I would be on firm ground. My correspondent looked for something better than the 12. Qd4 and 12. Nc3 suggested in my writeup. He shared, first, 12. Re1 Ne6 13. Bd3 (if 13. Bf3, I would say 13...Qe7 14. Qc3 O-O-O remains unclear) 13...Bxd3 14. cxd3 Qe7 15. Qc3 Rg8 16. f5 Nh4 17. fxe6 Ne6+ 18. Kh1 Nxe1. Now 19. Qxe1 fxe6 leaves Black with a rook and pawn versus two minor pieces rather far from the ending, but also with a good files for his rooks and a potentially mobile mass of queenside pawns. The reader then turned the diagrammed position over to Fritz, and it came up with a much more challenging idea: 12. g4!? Ne6 13. Qc3 (13. Qh6 may also be good) 13...Rg8 14. gxf5 Nxf4+ 15. Kh1 Nxe2 (15...Qg5 doesn't seem to help) 16. Qe3 N2d4 17. fxe6 Nxe6 and it is hard to believe that Black's two pawns, plus White's slightly insecure king, add up to compensation for the missing piece. It seems to me that, instead of 12Ne6, Black should play 12Qe7 13. gxf5 Qxe2 14. fxg6 Qg4+ 15. Kh1 O-O-O. This looks more like chess than the Fritz analysis submitted by my correspondent. Then 16. Nc3 (16. Be3 hxg6 17. Nc3 Rdg8 18. Qf6 Nd7 and Black wins) 16hxg6 17. Qd4 (17. Rf2 Rh3 18. Bd2 Rdh8 and 17. Be3 Rdg8 18. Qd4 Rxh2+! 19. Kxh2 Ne6 20. Qf6 Ng7 look very good for Black) 17Rh3 18. Be3 (18. Qg1 is satisfactory for Black after 18Qh5 19. f5 Rdh8 20. Bf4 g5 21. Bg3 Qg4) 18Ne6! 19. Qd2 Ng7! and by hurrying his knight to f5 with attendant pressure down the h-file, Black obtains what I believe is adequate compensation for his missing piece.

Position after 19...Ng7 One plausible idea for play from the diagram is 20. Bd4 Nf5 21. Qg2 Qh5 22. Rfd1 c5 23. Bf6 Ne3 24. Rd5! Nxd5 25. Nxd5 Re8 26. Ne7+ Kd7! with a complicated situation. For example 27. c4 Qf3 28. Re1 Qxg2+ 29. Kxg2 Rd3 30. Re2 Rd4! or 27. Rf1 d5 28. Re1 Qf3 29. f5 Qxf5 (but not 27. Qxb7+? Ke6). Of course, there are other possibilities, and I invite readers to submit their analyses of the diagrammed position. If I receive any, I will treat the question in a future column. Certainly, Fritz's 12. g4!? is a critical test of Black's game after 11...Bf5, and my correspondent (who has not replied to my request to use his or her name) is to be thanked for pointing this out. The Max Lange Attack is a maze of highly specific variations seemingly ununited by any principles of chess other than the primal urge to mate, and is therefore a fertile ground for computer-assisted investigation. Of course, after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O, Black can play the safe and sound5...Nxe4, avoiding the Max Lange. This was discussed at some length in the March 1999 edition of this column. But when I am eager for the full point, I prefer to play 5...Bc5, agreeing to the Max and its almost unfathomable complications. The main line of the Max then goes 6. e5 d5 7. exf6 dxc4 8. Re1+ Be6 9. Ng5 Qd5 10. Nc3 Qf5 11. Ne4. Early deviations by White are decidedly suboptimal. My standard try here has been Rubinstein's Defense: 11...Bf8!, and I have been well satisfied. The move 11...O-O-O has been theory's favorite for the past five or six decades (someday all systems will be old enough for remarks like that to be made about them), but I mistrust the position after 12. g4 Qe5 13. Nxe6 fxe6 14. fxg7 Rg8 15. Bh6! as first played by Marshall against Tarrasch in Hamburg 1910.

Position after 11...Bf8 Rubinstein's move takes a much more straightforward approach to the position. Black simply defends his g-pawn and trusts that his mobile queenside pawns will provide the advantage in the ending that will hopefully be forthcoming. White's only good continuation is 12. Nxf7 Kxf7 13. Ng5+ Kg8 14. g4 Qg6. Now White can opt for one of the most complicated lines chess has to offer: 15. Rxe6 gxf6 16. Qf3 Kg7 with almost utter obscurity and excellent winning chances for each player. A sample of what can happen is given in Baffo-Morss, below. Or White can try to clarify the situation with 15. fxg7 Bd5! (another Rubinstein idea, emphasizing the weakness of White's kingside) 16. gxh8=Q+ Kxh8 and the question is, does Black have compensation for the exchange? Koltanowski and recent authors advocating the Max have answered "no," based on 17. Bf4 (the older try, 17. Nh3, leads to an excellent game for Black). In various antique simultaneous games, Koltanowski encountered 17...Bd6 and 17...Bc5, and did very well. But Black here has not only kingside play, but also potential play on the queenside, and for that reason and to better control the center, I think he should play 17...Bg7!

Position after 17...Bg7 I like Black's chances in this as-yet-untested position, and some of my specific ideas will be found in the notes to Baffo-Morss. The second game, Soricelli-Morss, demonstrates what happens to White if he answers 11...Bf8 with 12. g4 instead of 12. Nxf7. Game 1. Baffo - Morss, USCF-93RT21 Game 2. Soricelli - Morss, USCF-92CM96 Download Games for a zipped file of both games (with commentary) in new ChessBase (CBH) and PGN formats.

Next month: The Staunton Gambit .

Baffo - Morss, USCF-93RT21 [C55] The white pieces in this game were commanded by Jeff Baffo, a U. S. Air Force officer who was stationed, during the course of the game, first in Germany and then in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He is a notable gambiteer, as I discovered when I saw a nice postal win of his with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7!? published in Chess Life.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 Entirely satisfactory for Black is 5...Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qh5! which is analyzed in Hard Chess for March 1999. However, the move played, which acquiesces to the dangerous Max Lange Attack, is a better winning attempt. 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+ Be6 9.Ng5 Qd5 10.Nc3 Qf5 11.Nce4 Bf8!

Position after 11...Bf8 Rubinstein's move, and in principle, the most solid move in the position. Black will not permit his opponent to establish a pawn on g7. 12.Nxf7! The complications arising from this move are critical for the evaluation of 11...Bf8, and perhaps of the entire Max Lange. For alternatives see Soricelli-Morss. 12...Kxf7 13.Ng5+ Kg8 A once well-regarded line that has now been discredited is 13...Kg6 A) 14.fxg7! Bxg7 15.Rxe6+ Bf6 16.g4 Qd5 17.Nh3 Kf7 18.Nf4 Qc5 19.Qf3 A1) I analyzed the unbooked 19...Raf8 20.Rxf6+ Kxf6 21.Nd3+ Kg7 22.Bh6+ Kg8 23.Bxf8 Qxf8 24.Qd5+ Qf7 25.Nf4! (threatening Qg5+) 25...Qxd5 26.Nxd5

Analysis position after 26. Nxd5 Black has trouble because he has only one piece active. A1a) 26...Kf7 27.Nxc7 Nb4 (27...Rg8 28.h3 h5 29.f3 does not help Black) 28.c3 Nc2 29.Rd1 d3 30.b3 and White's extra pawn should count for something; A1b) 26...Ne5 27.Nxc7 (27.h3 c6=) 27...Nxg4 28.Rd1 Ne5 29.f4 Nc6 30.Nb5 and White will emerge a pawn to the good, and with the initiative besides; A2) 19...Rhf8 20.Qe4 (20.b4?! Nxb4 21.Qe4 Kg8 22.Nh5 wins for White according to Lepeshkin, whose opinion is cited in ECO-3. But22...Qd5! and Black holds the fort, with advantage) 20...Kg8 21.Nh5 Be5 22.f4 is unclear, according to Zagarovsky in Romantic Chess Openings. But Black's game is decidedly unenviable after 22...Bg7 23.Nxg7 Kxg7 24.f5; B) Soltis in his Winning with the Guioco Piano and the Max Lange Attack, Chess Digest 1992, recommends 14.Nxe6 gxf6 (14...Re8 is also playable:15.Nf4+ Kf7 16.Rxe8 Kxe8 17.fxg7 Bxg7 and it difficult to see any advantage for White) 15.g4 (15.Nxc7 Bb4 16.Bd2 Bxd2 17.Qxd2 Rad8 18.Ne6 Rd6 19.Nf4+ Kf7 favors Black, according to Keres.) 15...Qa5 16.Bf4 and here Soltis likes White, but 16...Bd6 17.Qf3 Rae8 18.Re2 Re7 19.Rae1 Rhe8 was excellent for Black in Holzhausen-Em. Lasker, 1908. 14.g4

14.Nxe6 Re8 15.fxg7 Bxg7 16.Nxc7 Rxe1+ 17.Qxe1 Be5 18.Nd5 Kf7 is good for Black. 14...Qg6 14...Qxg4+? 15.Qxg4 Bxg4 16.f7#; 14...Qxf6? 15.Rxe6 Qd8 16.Qf3 Qd7 17.Re7!! and White won in Saemisch-Reiman, Bremen 1927; 14...Qd5!? is universally considered to be a fatal mistake, but I think it deserves to be taken more seriously: A) 15.Nxe6 Rc8. Simple chess. (15...Ne5? 16.f7+ Kxf7 17.Ng5+ Kg8 18.Rxe5! Qxe5 19.Qf3 and Black's queen was fatally overworked in Denker-Adams, New York 1940) A1) 16.fxg7 Bxg7 17.Nf4! (17.Nxg7 Kxg7 18.Bf4 Rhf8 19.Qd2 Kh8 unclear chances in view the strange pawn situation, but Black's game does not look worse; 17.Bf4 Be5 18.Bxe5 Nxe5 19.Nf4 Qd6 20.g5 Rf8) 17...Qf7 (this position can also arise if White inverts the order of his 16th and 17th moves) 18.Re4! Re8 (relatively worse is 18...Rd8 19.Ne6 Qg6 20.f3! Re8 21.Qe2) 19.Qe2 Rxe4 20.Qxe4 Be5 Black works to unbottle his kingside, but he still has some problems to overcome. For example, 21.a4 intending Ra3. White has some advantage.; A2) 16.Bf4 gxf6 17.Nxc7 Qd7 18.Qe2 Ne5 19.Bxe5 (19.g5 Qc6! with a big advantage for Black) 19...fxe5 20.Qxc4+ Qf7 21.Qxf7+ Kxf7 22.Nd5 Rg8 and Black is better because of his active rooks; B) Keres advocated 15.Rxe6 gxf6 16.Rxf6 B1) My idea is 16...Ne5! 17.f4 (17.Ne6 Bg7! 18.Nxc7 Qd8 19.Nxa8 Bxf6 is excellent for Black) 17...Bc5 18.Be3 Nd3!! with a fantastic game for Black; B2) Keres considered only 16...Bg7 17.Rf5 Qd7 18.Qe2 d3 19.Qe4! Nd4 20.Rf7 Ne2+ 21.Kf1 and White wins. 15.Rxe6 15.fxg7 Bd5! This exchange sacrifice is Rubinstein's concept. (15...Bxg7? 16.Rxe6 Bf6 17.Ne4 Rf8 18.Qf3 Kg7 19.Bg5) 16.gxh8Q+ Kxh8 A) 17.Bf4

Analysis position after 17. Bf4 Koltanowski's idea, recommended by some more recent authors also. A1) Koltanowski analyzes 17...Bd6 18.Bxd6 cxd6 19.f4 Rf8 20.Rf1 h6 21.Nh3 Be6 22.f5 Bxf5 23.Nf4 Qg7 (23...Qxg4+? 24.Qxg4 Bxg4 25.Ng6+) 24.h3 d3 25.c3 Ne5 26.Kh2 Bxg4 27.hxg4 Nxg4+ 28.Kh3 Ne3 29.Ng6+ Qxg6 30.Rxf8+ Kg7 31.Qf3 with a win for White; A2) 17...Bc5 18.Be5+ Kg8 19.Nh3 d3 20.cxd3 cxd3 21.Nf4 Qf7 22.Qxd3 Rd8 (22...Nxe5 23.Qxd5 Qxd5 24.Nxd5 Nf3+ 25.Kg2 Nxe1+ 26.Rxe1 and White has an extra pawn, and a protected passed one at that) 23.Qf5 Qxf5 (23...Qe7 24.Bf6 and Koltanowski won in a simul)24.gxf5 and Black is without adequate compensation, for example 24...Bf3 25.Bc3 Rf8 26.Ne6 Rxf5 27.Nxc5 Rxc5 28.Re3 Smith and Hall.; A3) Correct, in my view, is 17...Bg7! a move not considered by Koltanowski or by authors who have followed him. Black seeks queenside play, avoids exchanges, and secures his king. He also battens down the square e5. A3a) 18.a3 Rf8 19.Nh3 (19.Qd2? h6) 19...Bh6! 20.Be5+ Nxe5 21.Rxe5 Bf3 22.Qxd4 Bg7 and Black certainly is no worse; A3b) 18.c3 Rf8 19.Nh3 Be6 20.f3 dxc3 and Black stands very well indeed; A3c) 18.h4 Rf8 19.Qd2 h6 20.h5 (20.Bxc7 hxg5 21.Qxg5 Qxg5 22.hxg5 d3 favors Black) 20...Qf6 21.Nh3 Qh4 is great for Black;

A3d) 18.f3 Nb4 A3d1) 19.Rc1 Rf8 20.Nh3 c3 21.b3 (21.bxc3 Nxa2 22.Ra1 Nxc3 also favors Black) 21...d3 and Black is much better; A3d2) 19.Ne4 d3; B) 17.Nh3 Bd6 18.Nf4 (18.Bf4 Rf8 19.Bxd6 cxd6! 20.f4 Qh6 21.Ng5 Rxf4 22.Re8+ Kg7 with advantage to Black, according to Ken Smith and John Hall inMax Lange Attack and the Anti-Max Lange) B1) 18...Qh6 19.Nh5 Qg6 20.Bf4 (Keres considered 20.Nf4! Qh6 21.Nh5 Qg6 22.Nf4! with a draw, to be best) 20...Rf8 (20...Rg8 21.Bg3 with advantage to White) 21.Bg3 (21.Bxd6 cxd6 22.Ng3 Rf4 with more than enough for the exchange, according to Keres) 21...Bf3 and Black will continue with ...Qxg4 and a good game. Keres.; B2) 18...Qf7! 19.Nxd5 Qxd5 20.f4 (20.Qe2 d3 21.Qe6 d2!; 20.c3 Rf8 and Black, threatening ...Bxh2+, has the advantage. Keres.) 20...Bc5; B3) 18...Bxf4 19.Bxf4 Rf8 20.Bg3! (20.Be5+ Nxe5 21.Rxe5 Rf4 favored Black in a Keres postal game) 20...Bf3 21.Qd2 Bxg4 22.c3 d3 23.Re3 and according to Keres, Black has insufficient compensation for the exchange. 15...gxf6 16.Qf3 16.f4 Nd8 17.Qe2 d3 (17...Nxe6? 18.Qxe6+ Kg7 19.Qd7+ Kg8 20.Qd5+ Kg7 21.f5 Qe8 22.Ne6+ Kg8 23.Nxf8+ Kxf8 24.Bh6+ Ke7 25.Re1#) 18.cxd3 cxd3 19.Qe3 Bc5 20.Qxc5 Nxe6 21.Qd5 fxg5 22.f5 Qf6 favors Black, according to Smith and Hall. 16...Kg7 Keres attributes this move to Tartakover. 16...Be7 17.h4 Ne5 18.Rxe5! fxe5 19.Qd5+ and White is winning; 16...Ne5 17.Rxe5 fxe5 18.Qd5+ Kg7 19.Ne6+ Kg8 20.Nd8+ Kg7 21.Qxe5+ Kg8 22.Qd5+ Kg7 23.Ne6+ Kg8 24.Nxc7+ and White again is winning. 17.Bf4 Baffo regarded this as an innovation, though it is one that I had spent some time analyzing before our game ever began.

17.h4 h5 18.Bf4 hxg4 looks good for Black; 17.Ne4 Be7 18.Bg5 Raf8 19.h4 h5 (Keres' queen sacrifice 19...fxg5 20.Rxg6+ hxg6 look very promising for Black in view of White's debilitated kingside)20.Ng3 hxg4 21.Nf5+ Boeze-Hemmerling, postal 1961. And now, 21...Kh7! favors Black. 17...Bd6 18.Bxd6 cxd6 19.Nh3 Rhf8 20.Nf4

Position after 20. Nf4 This should have been the critical position of the game. 20...Qg5?! I did not rise to the occasion, playing this move on general principles without much calculation. Highly dubious is 20...Qxc2 21.Re2 Qa4 22.Ne6+ Kh8 23.Nxf8 Rxf8 24.Re6 f5 25.Qf4; The correct idea is 20...Qf7! and now: A) 21.Qe2 c3 (21...Rae8 22.Qxc4 Ne5 23.Qd5 is quite good for White) 22.Nh5+ Kh8 23.bxc3 Rg8! (23...dxc3 24.Rxf6 Qd5 25.Rd1 Qe5 26.Qxe5 Nxe5 27.h3) 24.Nxf6 (Too passive is 24.Ng3 dxc3 25.Rxd6 Rae8 26.Qd1 Ne5) 24...Rg6 25.Re8+ Rxe8 26.Qxe8+

Qxe8 27.Nxe8 Rxg4+ 28.Kf1 dxc3 29.Nxd6 b6 with a slight advantage to Black in the ending; B) 21.Nh5+ Kh8 B1) 22.Rxf6! Qe7 23.g5 (23.Qf5 Rxf6 24.Qxf6+ Qxf6 25.Nxf6 Rf8 26.g5 Kg7 27.Rd1 h6 transposes) B1a) 23...Ne5 24.Qe4 and White has much the better game; B1b) 23...Rg8 24.h4 Raf8 25.Qd5 Qe2 26.Qf5 Qe7 27.b3 and White is better; B1c) 23...Nb4?! 24.Qf5 d3 25.cxd3 Nxd3 26.b3 With Black's queenside pawns no longer a threat, White is much better.; B1d) 23...Rxf6! B1d1) 24.Qxf6+ Qxf6 25.Nxf6 Kg7 26.Rd1 h6 B1d11) Weak is 27.f4 hxg5 28.fxg5 Kg6 29.h4 (29.Ne4 d5 30.Nc5 Re8) 29...Rh8 and the h-pawn is lost; B1d12) 27.h4 hxg5 28.hxg5 Kg6 29.f4 Kf5 30.Nd5 (30.Rf1 Nb4) 30...Ke4

Analysis position after 30...Ke4

Black's active king and d-pawn are sufficient to balance White's kingside pawns. For example 31.Nc7 Rg8 32.Rf1 d3 33.cxd3+ cxd3; B1d2) 24.Nxf6 24...Rf8 25.Qd5 Qe5 26.h4 (26.Qxe5 dxe5 also favors Black, based on his better pawns) 26...Qxd5 27.Nxd5 Rf5 28.Nf6 Nb4 is good for Black; B2) 22.Rxd6 f5 23.g5 Qe7 24.Qf4 Rg8 (24...Rae8? 25.Nf6 Qe5 26.Rd7; 24...Qe4 25.g6 Rg8 26.Qg5; 24...Rad8? 25.Rxd8 Qxd8 26.g6!)25.Rf6 Rxg5+ 26.Qxg5 Rg8 27.Qxg8+ Kxg8 28.Rxf5 d3! 29.cxd3 (29.Nf6+ Kg7) 29...cxd3

Analysis position after 29...cxd3 Here Black's queen, in combination with her faithful knight and the ambitious dpawn, are a match for White's rooks. B2a) 30.Rd1 Nd4 31.Rd5 (31.Nf6+? Kh8) 31...Qe2; B2b) 30.Kg2 Nd4; B2c) 30.Nf6+ Kg7. 21.Nh3? The knight, having established himself on a very advantageous post, inexplicably retreats.

Insufficient for any advantage is 21.Rxd6 Qe5 22.Ne6+ Kh8 23.Rxc6 bxc6 24.Nxf8 Rxf8 25.Qxc6 d3 26.cxd3 Qxb2 27.Re1 cxd3 28.Re8 (28.Qd7 Qc2 29.Qd6 Kg7 30.Re7+ Rf7) 28...Qb1+ 29.Kg2 Rxe8 30.Qxe8+ Kg7; But White is significantly better after 21.Re4! Rae8 22.Ne6+ Rxe6 23.Rxe6 Ne5

Analysis position after 23...Ne5 For a long time I hoped that Black had compensation for the exchange here, but I don't think he does. A) 24.Re7+! Kh8 25.Qh3 Rf7 26.Rxf7 Nxf7 A1) 27.Re1 Ne5 28.f3 (28.Qg3 Qd2; 28.Re4 f5 29.f4 Qg6) 28...Qd2; A2) 27.Rd1 Qf4 28.Qh5 Ne5 29.Qf5 (29.Qe8+ Kg7 30.Qe7+ Kg6 31.h3 Nxg4 32.Qe8+ Kh6 33.Qf8+ Kh5 34.Qf7+ Kh6 35.Qf8+ Kh5with a perpetual) 29...Qxf5 30.gxf5 d3 31.cxd3 Nxd3 32.Kf1

Analysis position after 32. Kf1 The ending is not entirely clear to me, but I doubt that Black's knight and pawns are a match for White's rook. Black's king is much too remote. B) Much less clear is 24.Qxb7+ Kh8 25.Re7 (25.Qg2 f5; 25.h3 Nxg4; 25.f3 Nxg4) 25...Qh4! 26.Re1! (26.Qg2 Rg8!; 26.f3 f5) 26...f5. 21...Qh4 22.Rxd6 22.Nf4 Ne5 23.Qxb7+ Kh8 24.Qg2 f5! with a strong attack. 22...Rad8 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.Rd1 24.Nf4 Ne5 25.Qg2 Rd7 and Black preserves an advantage. 24...Kh8 Worse is 24...Kg8 25.Nf4 Ne5 26.Qg2. 25.g5 25.Nf4 Ne5 26.Qg2 f5! with a strong attack. 25...fxg5 26.Qf6+ Kg8 27.Qxg5+ Qxg5+ 28.Nxg5

Position after 28. Nxg5 I thought I had some advantage here based on my mobile queenside pawns. I would appreciate it if anyone can tell me how I should have conducted this ending. 28...Rd5 More direct and possibly better is 28...d3 29.cxd3 Rxd3 30.Rxd3 (30.Rc1 b5 31.Ne4 Nd4) 30...cxd3 31.Ne4 Nd4 and White's king has a hard time approaching the d-pawn, while in the mean time, Black can bring up his own king to threaten White's knight. 29.Ne4 Kf7 30.Rd2 Kg6 30...Ke6 31.Kg2 b5 32.f4 Kf5 33.Kf3 and Black makes no progress. 31.Kg2 b5 32.f3 b4 33.f4 Ra5 34.Kf3 This move, revealing the ingenious point of White's defense, came as a bad surprise. 34...c3 Played with the draw offer. White's rook and knight cooperate extremely well against Black's king. 34...Rxa2 35.Rg2+

A) 35...Kh6 36.Nf6 Rxb2 (36...Ra5 37.Ng8+ Kh5 38.Nf6+ draws, or White can try for more with 38. Rg7.) 37.Ng8+ Kh5 38.Rg5+ Kh4 39.Nf6 and White soon mates; B) 35...Kf5 36.Nd6+ Ke6 37.Nxc4 1/2-1/2 Soricelli - Morss, USCF-92CM96 [C55] My opponent in this game was Gerard Soricelli, then residing in Staten Island, New York. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+ Be6 9.Ng5 Qd5 10.Nc3 Qf5 11.Nce4 Bf8 12.g4?!

Analysis position after 12. g4 Already a very critical position. It is clear from White's move that he does not have a good library, since the antidote is well-known. For 12. Nxf7!, see Baffo-Morss. 12...Qxg4+! Black sacrifices the exchange.

12...Qd5 13.Nxf7 Kxf7 14.Ng5+ Ke8 15.Nxe6 Kd7 16.Bf4! Bd6 17.Bxd6 cxd6 18.fxg7 Rhg8 19.f4 was played with great advantage to White by Zemsch, Lebedinev and Borovoi in consultation versus Janowski in 1901. 13.Qxg4 Bxg4 14.fxg7 14.Nd6+ Kd7 is good for Black; Also favoring Black is 14.Nc5+ Be6 15.Ngxe6 fxe6 16.Nxe6 Kf7 17.Nxc7 Rc8. 14...Bxg7 15.Nf6+ Kf8 16.Ngxh7+ 16.Nxg4 h5 favors Black. 16...Rxh7 17.Nxh7+ Kg8 18.Ng5 Nb4 19.Re7 Nxc2 20.Rb1

Position after 20. Rb1 With his two bishops and his superbly mobile pawn mass, Black has more than sufficient compensation for the exchange. Still, to win presents some problems. 20...f6 With this I was trying to eliminate White's rook from the seventh rank. I'm not really sure how best to handle this difficult position. 21.Ne6

Black freely gives up the seventh rank. Better is 21.Ne4 and during the game I imagined I would play 21...Rc8 (but stronger would have been 21...Bf3 22.Nd2 Bd5 23.Rd7 Bc6 with advantage to Black) 22.Bf4 (22.Bh6? Bxh6 23.Nxf6+ Kf8 24.Nxg4 Kxe7 25.Nxh6 Kf6) 22...Kf8 23.Rxc7 Rxc7 24.Bxc7 and the loss of the pawn seemed like a small price to pay for the eviction of the rook. The chances are unclear, however. 21...Bxe6 22.Rxe6 Kf7 23.Re2 23.Re4 f5 24.Rf4 Kf6 25.Rf3 Re8 with excellent winning chances for Black. 23...d3 24.Re4 b5 25.Bd2 25.Be3 f5 26.Rf4 Nxe3 27.fxe3 Ke6 28.e4 fxe4 29.Rxe4+ Kd5 and Black's mobile pawns will be very difficult to stop. 25...f5 26.Rh4 Nd4 27.Rh3 Rh8 28.Kg2 But not 28.Rxh8 Nf3+ 29.Kg2 Nxd2 30.Rd1 Bxh8 31.Rxd2 Bxb2. 28...Rxh3 29.Kxh3 Nc2 30.a3 c5 31.Kg2 b4 32.axb4 cxb4 33.Kf3

Position after 33. Kf3 33...Bxb2 34.Rxb2 c3 35.Bxc3

I also considered 35.Rxb4 cxd2 36.Rb1 a5 37.Rd1 a4 38.Rxd2 a3 39.Rxd3 a2 40.Rd1 a1Q 41.Rxa1 Nxa1

Analysis position after 41...Nxa1 Though the knight is far-flung, the ending is won for Black. White's pawns are unable to exchange Black's last pawn. 35...bxc3 36.Rb7+ Ke6 37.Rb1 Nd4+ 38.Ke3 c2 39.Re1 Ne2 40.Kd2 a5 41.h4 c1Q+ 42.Rxc1 Nxc1 0-1

August 1999
The Max Lange Once More; the Staunton Gambit
The subject of last month's column was Rubinstein's defense to the Max Lange, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Bc5 6. e5 d5 7. exf6 dxc4 8. Re1+ Be6 9. Ng5 Qd5 10. Nc3 Qf5 11. Nce4 Bf8!, an idea for which I have a high regard. A principal point of theoretical contention in this defense is the relative chances after 12. Nxf7 Kxf7 13. Ng5+ Kg8 14. g4 Qg6 15. Rxe6 gxf6 16. Qf3 Kg7 17. Bf4 Bd6, as played in Baffo-Morss, USCF-93RT21and considered last month. But in the notes to that game, as pointed out by Owen D. Lyne, a statistician at the University of Nottingham, England, I did not consider some key ideas for White that have been advocated in the theoretical literature.

Position after 17...Bd6 The first idea pointed out Mr. Lyne is 18. Bxd6 cxd6 and now 19. Ne4 instead of 19. Nh3 as played in Baffo-Morss. I believe Black should answer with19Rhf8, since 19... Ne5 20. Qxf6+ Qxf6 21. Nxf6 Sorowiak-Jaworski, Polish cc Champ. 1994, appears to favor White. Then 20. Rxd6 Rae8 (also 20... Rad8 is to be considered) 21. Ng3 Kh8 is unclear but I suspect not worse for Black. White also has 20. Nxd6 h5 21. Nxb7 Ne5 22. Re7+ Kh8 23. Qf4 (23. Qg3 hxg4 looks good for Black) 23... Qxg4+ 24. Qg3 Rae8 and Black has the more active pieces. The second and perhaps more important idea to which Mr. Lyne calls attention (from the position in the previous diagram) is 18. h4, a move advocated by Keene and Levy in the 1984 edition of their Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Player. This creates some problems for Black. For example, 18... h5 19. Bxd6 cxd6 20. Rxd6 and the threat of 21. Rd7+ is very difficult to meet. Instead of 18h5, Keene and Levy quote an analysis of Estrin's which goes 18Bxf4!? 19. Qxf4 Rhe8! (I very much doubt that Black has time for 19Rac8) 20. Qxc7+ Kg8.

Position after 20Kg8 Estrin continues 21. Rae1 Rxe6 22. Rxe6 Qg7 (here 22... Rf8 looks better) 23. Rxc6 bxc6 24. Qxc6. Estrin's analysis goes deeper even from here and favors White but, as Mr. Lyne suggests, at this point it is already too deep. From the diagram, the pedestrian 21. Qxb7 looks better to me, when 21... Rxe6 22. Qxa8+ Qe8 23. Qxe8+ Rxe8 24. Nf3 Re4 25. g5 Ne5 26. Kg2 Nxf3 27. Kxf3 Rxh4 28. gxf6 favors White because of his more active King and better pawns. One way or the other, I am persuaded that 18Bxf4 does not solve Black's problems. Therefore after 18. h4, I think Black should take the opportunity to consolidate his kingside and play 18Rhf8. Then 19. Bxd6 (the simplifying 19. Rxd6 cxd6 20. Ne6+ Kh8 21. Nxf8 Rxf8 22. Bxd6 Rg8 23. Bg3 Ne5 favors Black, and 19. Rae1? is met by 19... fxg5!) 19... cxd6 20. Rxd6 Kh8 21. Ne6 (21. Qd5 h6 is excellent for Black) 21... Rg8 22. g5 fxg5 23. h5 Ne5 reaching a crossroads by a more or less forced series of moves.

Position after 23Ne5 The first option here is 24. Qxb7 Qxh5 25. Nxd4 Rab8 and now: 26. Qe7 Ng4 27. Nf3 Qh3 28. Qe4 Qh1+! with a favorable ending or 26. Qd5 g4 27. Kf1 (27. Re1? 27... Nf3+) 27... g3 and Black has a powerful initiative. The second, and in my view more challenging, option from the diagram is 24. Qd5 Qf6 (24... Qf5 25. Qxd4) 25. Kg2 Ng4 26. Qxd4 Qxd4 27. Rxd4 (27. Nxd4 Rgd8 and Black is certainly no worse after 28. Rxd8+ Rxd8 or 28. Nf5 Rf8) 27... Nf6 28. Rxc4 (28. h6 is not as troublesome as it seems; 28... c3 29. bxc3 [29. b3 Rae8 30. Re1 Rg6 31. Re3 Kg8] 29... Rae8 30. Re1 Rg6 31. Re3 Kg8 with a good game for Black) 28... Rae8 29. Re1 Nxh5 30. Rce4 Nf6(dubious is 30...Rxe6 31. Rxe6 Nf4+ 32. Kg3 Nxe6 33. Rxe6 Rc8 34. Re7 34... Rxc2 35. Rxb7 Kg8 36. f3 and White stands very well) 31. Re5 h5. Here I think Black's game is entirely adequate, and I suspect he is not without winning chances. These are extremely complicated lines, and I would certainly not claim to have either the last word concerning them or a monopoly on chess truth. As I've said before here, I am one player sharing his ideas, for whatever they are worth. I am very grateful for Mr. Lyne's observations, and I sincerely encourage the reader to submit his or her own critique of my analyses. For the reader's convenience, I have provided the foregoing Max Lange analysis in the same file that contains this month's games. I'm not one of those many players who must play gambits or give up chess, but one would think that the Staunton Gambit, 1. d4 f5 2. e4, should work if any center-pawn gambit should. After all, Black's first move weakens his kingside and develops nothing, and by ripping open the position, White should be able to take advantage of this. For quite a while, therefore, I upheld this gambit in my practice, and I was particularly fond of the version with 2fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.

f3. I've won some nice OTB games where my opponents played 4exf3?!, but in postal, nobody does that. They all play 4d5! 5. fxe4 dxe4 and the dark side of 4. f3 emerges: Black plays with two center pawns, White only plays with one. Moreover, White's queen pawn is tactically weak. The theoretically critical continuation, 6. Bg5 Bf5 7. Bc4 Nc6 8. Nge2 Qd7 9. O-O e6 10. Qe1 O-O-O 11. Rd1 Na5 12. Bb3 Nxb3 13. axb3 is discussed in the first, second and fourth games below.

Position after 13. axb3 In Morss-Koehler, I won an easy game after Black went in for the dubious 13e3. The problem with this is that he has no credible threat to take the c-pawn, thereby exposing his king. In the second game, my task was much more difficult. Chicagoan Paul Ilosvay played 13Be7 and maintained the better chances for a long time when I responded with the awful 14. Na4. Fortunately, he slipped up in some very interesting complications, and I was able to draw. Perhaps I should have played 14. d5 but even there, it's not clear how White can equalize after 14Bg4. These considerations put me off 4. f3, and I decided to take up 4. Bg5. The game Morss-Jacowitz is the fruit of that, but it was not as pleasant-tasting as the happy result makes it seem. At one point early, thanks to a big hole in my preparations, Jacowitz was better. After this, I resolved never to play the Staunton Gambit in a game of postal chess. A couple of years ago I took up the Dutch Leningrad, and soon enough I had to face as Black the same Staunton Gambit that I as White had renounced. In the qualifying section for the 13th U.S. CC Championship I had the diagrammed position from the Black side. My opponent was Jeff Wilson, another good player from the Chicago area. I chose 13h6, supposing that the opening of the g-file would be very good for me. My opponent agreed and chose to retreat, and I used my

initiative to force exchanges into a very comfortable ending that I was able to win. Faithless fellow that I am, I think that my once-beloved Staunton Gambit is reaching the end of its days in serious chess competitions. I'll keep a picture of it on my desk to remind me of our former happy times together. Game 1. Morss - Koehler, USCF-92CM84 Game 2. Morss - Ilosvay, USCF-92CM284 Game 3. Morss - Jacowitz, US12P01 Game 4. Wilson - Morss, US13P05 Download Games for a zipped file of both games (with commentary) in new ChessBase (CBH) and PGN formats.

Next Month: Two Knights Defense, Modern Variation: 4. d4 exd4 5. e5.

(1) Morss - Koehler [A82] USCF-92CM84 My opponent in this game was Thomas Koehler of Florida, NY. 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 d5 5.fxe4 dxe4 6.Bg5 Bf5 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.Nge2 Qd7 9.0-0 e6 10.Qe1 0-0-0 11.Rd1 Na5 12.Bb3 Nxb3 13.axb3 e3

Game position after 13...e3 Black's move is without much point because his threat to win the c-pawn is not very credible. Doing so would expose his king too much. 14.Ra1 a6 14...Kb8 15.Bxe3 A) 15...Bd6 16.d5 a6 (16...Bxh2+ 17.Kxh2 Ng4+ 18.Kg1 Nxe3 19.Qf2 favors White) 17.Nd4 Ng4 18.Nc6+ bxc6 19.Rxa6 and White's attack is extremely dangerous, for example, 19...Nxe3 20.Qa1 and mates soon; B) 15...Bxc2 16.d5 Nxd5 17.Nxd5 Qxd5 (17...exd5 18.Bxa7+ Kc8 19.Bd4 with good compensation for White) 18.Nf4 Qxb3 19.Bxa7+ Kc8 20.Qxe6+ Qxe6 21.Nxe6 Re8 22.Bc5! and White has at least compensation for his sacrificed pawn. 15.Na4 Kb8 16.c4 h6 17.Bxe3 g5 A feeble attempt at kingside counterplay, but Black's attack now is much slower than White's. Black should play 17...Bd6 but it seems that White retains the better game after 18.h3 (18.Qa5 Bxh2+ 19.Kh1 Qd6 is unclear) 18...g5 (similar is 18...Rhf8 19.Qa5 Ne4 20.b4 Qc6 21.Nc5) 19.Qa5 Ne4 20.b4 Qc6 21.Nc5.

18.d5 Bd6 18...exd5? 19.Ng3. 19.Nd4

Game position after 19. Nd4 19...Ng4 Obviously deficient, but there is no defense in any case. 19...Ne4 20.Qa5 Rhf8 21.Nc6+ bxc6 22.Qxa6 with an overwhelming attack for White. 20.dxe6 Bxh2+ 21.Kh1 Bxe6 22.Nxe6 Qe8 23.Rf3 Rd6 24.Nac5 Be5 25.Qb4 Rb6 26.Nxa6+ Kc8 27.Bxb6 A nice Staunton Gambit win, but Black never provided much resistance. 1-0 (2) Morss - Ilosvay [A82] USCF-92CM284 The Black pieces in this game were under the command of Paul Ilosvay, of Naperville, Illinois.

1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 d5 5.fxe4 dxe4 6.Bg5 Bg4 I don't see an obvious way to punish this move. 7.Be2 Bf5 8.Bc4 And so the game transposes into the theoretical main line, but one move later. 8...Nc6 9.Nge2 Qd7 10.0-0 e6 11.Qe1 0-0-0 12.Rd1 Na5 13.Bb3 Nxb3 14.axb3 Be7

Game position after 14...Be7 Black plays a very solid move, and I suspect it is sufficient for the advantage. 15.Na4 It can hardly be good to decentralize like this, without even a tempo to show for the displacement of the knight. I was dreaming of queenside attack, of course. Before I began playing postal chess, my game was marked by pseudo-agressive moves of this kind, and this game was played early in my postal career. I believe my game has become a good deal more hard-bitten as a result of my postal experiences. I would like to think that I wouldn't play this way if given a similar opportunity today. I don't see very much for White in 15.Ng3 h6 16.Be3 Bg6 (16...Ng4 17.d5!) For example, 17.Bf2!? (17.Na4 Ng4 looks good for Black)

A) 17...e3?! 18.Qxe3 Bxc2 19.Ra1 a6 (19...Kb8 20.d5 b6 21.Qe2 Bg6 22.Qa6 and White wins) 20.Qe2 Bxb3 21.Rxa6 is great for White; B) 17...Qc6! is simple and favors Black; It seems to me that either the diagram position is better for Black, or 15.d5 must work. A) 15...Bc5+ 16.Kh1 A1) 16...exd5? 17.Bxf6; A2) 16...h6 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Ng3 (18.Na4 Be7 19.Nd4 Bg4 20.dxe6 Qd6 favors Black) 18...Bg4 19.dxe6 Qxe6 20.Rxd8+ Rxd8 21.Qxe4 with approximate equality; A3) 16...Bg4 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Nxe4 is all right for White; A4) 16...Rhf8 17.Ng3 Bg6 18.Bxf6 Rxf6 19.Ngxe4 Rxf1+ 20.Qxf1 again with approximate equality; B) However, I haven't been able to find a good answer to 15...Bg4! B1) 16.Qf2 Bxe2 17.Qxe2 (17.Qxa7 Bc5+ 18.Qxc5 Bxf1 19.Qa7 Qd6 20.dxe6 Qa6) 17...exd5 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Nxd5 Qe6 and White has not much for his pawn; B2) 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Nxe4 exd5! (17...Bxb2 18.Qa5 Bxe2 19.Qxa7 and White, in view of the threat of mate or Nc5 if the black queen moves, has a winning attack) 18.Nxf6 gxf6 19.Qf2 Bxe2 20.Qxe2 Rhf8 and it is doubtful that White has compensation for his pawn; C) 15...h6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Qf2 e3 18.Qxe3 Kb8 19.Nd4 Bxd4 20.Rxd4 Rhe8 (20...Bxc2 21.Ra4 a6 22.dxe6 with a good game for White) 21.Ra4 a6 22.Qf2 with balanced chances. 15...h6 16.Bh4 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qa5 a6 18.c4 Rhg8 19.b4 e3 20.b5 Bh3 and White's attack is much too slow. 16...Bg4 Dangerous for Black but possibly playable is 16...e3 17.Qa5 Qc6 (17...Qd5? 18.Qxa7 Bxc2 19.Rc1) 18.Qxa7 Bxc2 19.Rc1 g5 (19...Rhf8 20.Rxc2 Qxc2 21.Rc1) 20.Bg3

Nd5 (20...Ne4 21.d5) 21.Rxc2 Qxc2 22.Rc1 Qxb3 23.Rxc7+ Nxc7 24.Nb6+ Qxb6 25.Qxb6 Rd7 26.Bxc7 Rxc7 27.Qxe6+ Kb8 28.Qxe3 with approximate equality. 17.Nac3 I can't recall why I played this move, having once committed the knight to a4. 17.h3 Bh5 18.c4 would have been more consistent, though Black is better in any case. 17...Nd5! But there is no shortage of good moves: 17...Qc6!; 17...g5! 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.Ra1

Game position after 19. Ra1 19...Ne3 This move is technically sufficient to preserve the win, but it's a bad move in a practical sense because it permits dangerous counterchances. More solid is 19...Kb8 20.Ng3 (20.Nxe4 Ne3 21.Qa5 a6 22.Nc5 Qd6 and Black is better) 20...e3 21.h3 (21.Nce4) 21...Nb4 22.hxg4 Nxc2 23.Qe2 Nxa1 24.Rxa1 Qb4 and Black's rook and pawns are much better than White's knights.

20.Rxa7 Nxf1 21.Nxe4! I suspect this came as a surprise. 21...b6! 21...Ne3? 22.Nc5 and White wins; 21...c5 22.Qa5 Qc7 23.Ra8+ Kd7 24.Nxc5+ Kc6 25.Qa4+ Kd6 26.Rxd8+ Rxd8 27.Qb4 Kc6 28.Kxf1 and White has at least enough for the exchange. 22.Qxf1

Game position after 22. Qxf1 Does White have compensation for the exchange? 22...Qb4! 23.N2c3 Qxd4+ 24.Kh1 Kb8 24...Rhf8 25.Qa6+ Kd7 26.h3! with good play for White (but not 26.Rxc7+ Kxc7 27.Nb5+ Kc6 28.Nxd4+ Rxd4). 25.Ra1 25.Qa1 Qd1+! 26.Nxd1 Rxd1+ 27.Qxd1 Bxd1 and Black is better.

Game position after 25.Ra1 25...Qe3? This looks like a strong move, but it strands the queen, which now has trouble coming to the aid of Black's king. 25...Bf5 26.Ng3 (26.Qf3 Bxe4 27.Nxe4 Rhf8) 26...Qc5! 27.Qf3 (27.Qa6 Qc6) 27...c6 28.Nxf5 exf5 29.Qg3+ Qd6 30.Qxg7 Qd7 31.Qe5+ Kb7 and White is without compensation for his lost material. 26.h3 26.Qa6? Rd1+ 26...Bf5 26...Bh5?? 27.Qa6 27.Qc4 Bxe4 27...c5 28.Ra8+ draws. 28.Nxe4 Rd5 Black can also opt for a rather elaborate perpetual by means of 28...Kb7 29.Qa6+ Kc6 30.Qc4+ Kd7 31.Rd1+ Kc8 32.Ra1 Kb7 and so forth forever.

29.b4 29.Qc6? Ra5 29...Rhd8 29...Kb7 30.Nc5+ Rxc5 (30...bxc5?? 31.Qb5+ Kc8 32.Ra8#) 31.bxc5 Qxc5 32.Qxe6 with equality. Black can't play 32...Qxc2? 33.Qd5+. 30.Nc3 Rh5 30...Kb7 31.Nxd5 exd5 (31...Rxd5? 32.b5) 32.Ra7+ Kxa7 33.Qxc7+ is even. 31.Qc6 Now Black, not White, forces a perpetual. 31...Rxh3+ 32.gxh3 Qxh3+ 33.Kg1 Disgusted by the outcome of the opening phase of this game, I abandoned the variation with 4. f3 and resolved to try 4. Bg5. 1/2-1/2 (3) Morss - Jacowitz [A83] US12P01 My opponent in this game was Martin Jacowitz of Flushing, New York, an engaging fellow and an interesting correspondent. 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 By the time this game was played, I had convinced myself that there was no advantage in 4. f3, and this move was my great hope for the Staunton Gambit. 4...Nc6 5.d5 Ne5 6.f4

Game position after 6. f4 Not a novely, but I was hopeful for good results with this unusual move. I could find nothing for White in the standard 6. Qd4 Nf7. 6...exf3 I was hoping for 6...Nf7 7.Qd4 g6 8.Nxe4 Bg7 9.0-0-0 as played in ReicherAlexandrescu, Romania 1962, with a difficult and double-edged game, but with good winning chances for White. 7.Nxf3 Nf7 8.Bd3 e5 9.dxe6 9.0-0 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Ne4 0-0 12.c4 d6 left White with insufficient compensation in Holmes-Mieses, Liverpool 1929. 9...dxe6 10.Qe2 In my preparations, I mistakenly assumed this position was good for White. 10...Nxg5 Jacowitz missed 10...Bd6! 11.0-0 (11.0-0-0? Nxg5 12.Nxg5 Bf4+) 11...0-0 12.Rae1 c6 13.Kh1

Analysis position after 13. Kh1 White has some, but not sufficient, compensation for his pawn. 11.Nxg5 Bb4 Here again, it is better to play 11...Bd6 12.Nxe6 Bxe6 13.Qxe6+ Qe7 14.Qxe7+ Bxe7 (14...Kxe7 15.0-0-0 and Black's king won't be very comfortable) . A) 15.0-0-0 0-0-0 16.Bf5+ (16.Rhe1 Bb4) 16...Kb8 with equality; B) 15.Nb5 0-0-0 16.Nxa7+ Kb8 17.Nb5 Bb4+ 18.Ke2 Rhe8+ 19.Kf3 c6 with excellent counterplay for Black. 12.0-0-0 Qe7 13.Bxh7 Bxc3 13...Rxh7 14.Nxh7 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Nxh7 16.Qh5+ g6 17.Qxg6+ Qf7 18.Qd3 with excellent play for White in view of Black's exposed king and retarded development. 14.Qd3 An extravagant move about which I was quite happy at the time. But now I think it was better to play 14.Bg6+ Kf8 15.bxc3 Rh6 16.Qd3 and I believe Black's king is in greater danger than White's. 14...Bd7?

14...Be5 15.Qg6+ Kf8 16.Rd8+ Ne8 17.Rf1+ Bf6 18.Rxf6+ gxf6 19.Rxe8+ Qxe8 20.Qxf6+ Qf7 21.Qxf7#; 14...Nd5! 15.Qg6+ (15.Bg6+ Kf8 16.Nh7+ Rxh7 17.Rhf1+ Bf6 18.Bxh7 Qc5 looks good for Black) A) 15...Kd7? 16.bxc3 Qa3+ (16...Kc6 17.Rxd5 Qa3+ 18.Kd2; 16...Rf8 17.Qxe6+ Qxe6 18.Nxe6 Kxe6 19.Rhe1+ Kd6 20.c4 c6 21.cxd5 cxd5 22.c4 Be6 23.Be4) 17.Kb1; B) 15...Kf8 16.Rhf1+ Bf6 17.c4 c6 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.Kb1 with unclear chances. 15.Bg6+ Kf8 16.Qxc3 Rh6 16...Be8 17.Qd3 Bxg6 18.Qxg6 Rh6 19.Qd3 with substantial advantage for White based on his better pawns and more secure king. 17.Bd3 c6 A dreadfully passive move, but Black's pawn structure and insecure king render the defense very difficult, in any case. 18.Rhf1 Simpler and better is 18.Qe5. 18...Kg8 18...Rxh2 19.Nf3 Rh6 (19...Rh8 20.Ne5 Be8 21.g4; 19...Rxg2? 20.Nh4) 20.Ne5 Kg8 21.g4 is very good for White. 19.h3 Rf8 19...Nd5 20.Qe5 20.Qd2 Nd5 21.Rxf8+ Qxf8 22.c4 Nb4 23.Bh7+ Kh8? More resistance is offered by 23...Rxh7 24.Nxh7 Kxh7 25.a3 Nd5 26.cxd5 cxd5 27.Qd4 , though White is still winning. 24.Qxd7 Qf4+ 25.Kb1 Qxg5 26.Be4

Although I won this game, it took more than one mistake for Black to lose, and Black was better early. I resolved never again to play the Staunton Gambit in a game of postal chess. 1-0 (4) Wilson - Morss [A82] US13P05 A couple of years ago I added the Leningrad Dutch to my repertoire, and soon enough I found myself with the black pieces against the very same Staunton Gambit that I as White had abandoned. My opponent in this encounter was USCF Master Jeff Wilson of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 d5 5.fxe4 dxe4 6.Bg5 Bf5 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.Nge2 Qd7 8...e5?! is well met by 9.0-0. 9.0-0 e6 10.Qe1 0-0-0 11.Rd1 Na5 12.Bb3 12.Bb5 c6 13.Ba4 Nc4 14.d5 (14.Bb3 Nxb2 15.Rb1 Nd3 is very complicated, but I think Black is better, for example 16.cxd3 exd3 17.Ng3 Qxd4+ 18.Rf2 Bc5 19.Rbb2 Ng4!) 14...Bc5+ 15.Kh1 was played in Schultz-Wille, Germany 1957. I don't care for White's chances. 12...Nxb3 Schiller and Colias, in How to Play Black against the Staunton Gambit, say, "The immediate response [to 12. Bb3] should be 12...Be7 , since Black's light-squared bishop isn't going anywhere, and Black can afford to finish development before taking on b3." But I disagree. After 12...Be7 White can compel the return of the pawn, with a more or less even game. 13.Ba4 A) 13...Nc6 14.Bxf6 gxf6 (14...Bxf6 15.d5) 15.d5 Bc5+ 16.Kh1 and White is better; B) 13...c6 14.Nxe4 Nc4 15.Nxf6 gxf6 (or 15...Bxf6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qc3) 16.Bc1 Rhg8 17.Bb3 and the game looks roughly even to me. 13.axb3 h6

Black is entirely willing to invest a tempo in the opening of the g-file, should White decide to exchange on f6. If White retreats the bishop, Black will have some initiative. 13...Be7 as played in Morss-Ilosvay is also a good move, but I wasn't sure about how to evaluate 14.d5 14.Be3 14.Bh4 Bd6; 14.Bf4 Nd5 14...Ng4 I was aiming here for simplification, which I believe favors Black in this position. It's difficult now for White to avoid the next series of exchanges. 15.Ng3 Bd6 16.h3 Nxe3 17.Qxe3 Bxg3 18.Qxg3 Qc6

Game position after 18...Qc6 c6 is a good post for the queen in the Staunton with 4. f3 d5, defending the e4 pawn and the queenside, and eyeing c2. Black has the advantage in the diagrammed position, for if White invests the time necessary to win the e4 pawn, Black will be able to stir up an initiative. But White has little choice, since not enough wood remains to mount a convincing queenside attack.

18...e3?! 19.d5 Bxc2 20.Rc1 Bd3 (20...Bxb3? 21.Nb5) 21.Rfd1 Ba6 22.Qxe3 favors White. 19.Qe3 Rd6 Black piles up on d4. 20.Rfe1 Rhd8 21.g4? It would have been much better to take the e-pawn immediately. This move exposes White's kingside pawns in the coming ending. 21...Bg6 22.Nxe4 Qxe4 23.Qxe4 Bxe4 24.Rxe4 c5 25.c3 cxd4 26.Rdxd4 White wisely decides to play a single rook and pawn ending, maximizing his drawing chances. He exchanges his least active rook. The king and pawn ending after 26.Rexd4 Rxd4 27.Rxd4 Rxd4 28.cxd4 Kd7 is won for Black. 26...Rxd4 27.cxd4 Kd7

Game position after 27...Kd7 Black has the better pawns, the more active king, and, with ...Rc8 soon to be played, the more active rook -- a good recipe for a win.

28.Kf2 Rc8 29.Rf4 Rc2+ 30.Ke1 Ke7 31.Re4 Kd6 32.Rf4 White's rook moves look desperate, but his chances for a draw depend on finding activity for his rook. 32...Rxb2 33.Rf7 Rxb3 34.Rxg7 a5 White's rook finds its activity, but it's very tough for White now that Black has connected, passed pawns. 35.Kd2 a4 36.Kc2 b5 37.h4 Rh3 38.Rb7 Kc6 39.Re7 Kd5 Not all rook and pawn endings are drawn. 0-1