18 May, Aug 07 PDF

UON 18 May -Aug.
2007
Dedicated to gambiteers and

players of the unorthodox.
Senior Editor: Gary K. Gifford

Senior Editor:
Gary K. Gifford penswift@yahoo.com
Contributors to UON 18 (in order of articles)

G. K. Gifford, Tim Sanders, FM Eric Schiller, Davide Rozzoni, IM Gerard Welling,
Gustav Fhager, Rick Kennedy, Cor. Master Giorgio Codazza, and Danny Senechaud
A Word About the Articles . . .

The views and opinions expressed in the articles, including book reviews, are of the respective
authors and are not necessarily shared by the editor and other UON members. Care has been
taken to avoid misspellings and typographical errors, but their presence remains possible.
Significant errors, if present, will be stated in an errata in a subsequent issue of UON.
UONs 15 and up are available for upload from Chess-Unorthodox-UON@yahoogroups.com You

can subscribe to the group by sending an e-mail message to
Chess-Unorthodox-UON-subscribe@yahoogroups.com .
The original UCO list no longer hosts new UONs, as there is not enough room at the files site.
Note that the newer UON list does not generate e-mail messages, except for UON-related
messages from the editor. Subscription to the new group listing is free.
UON 18 April 2007 by Gary K. Gifford
Cover Art: Mandarin King & Queen from Giffords Chess Set Collection
Please forward UON comments, games, and article submissions to: penswift@yahoo.com
Contents UON 18 May August 2007
1. Opening Remarks & Chess Cartoon by G. K. Gifford 2
2. The Benko Opening, 1. g3, by Tim Sanders 3
3. Sicilian Defense: Mongoose Variation by FM Eric Schiller 6
4. The Nh6 Hero, du Chattel part 2,

by Davide Rozzoni with comments by IM Gerard Welling 8
5. Loss of Time and Space, a review, by Tim Sanders 18
6. The Unicorn Defense, by Gustav Fhager 19
7. Jerome Gambit Revisited, by Rick Kennedy 30
8. Gambetto Blackmar Diemer Variante 1.d4 b6 2.Nc3,

by Correspondence Master Giorgio Codazza 35
9. Dutch Defense, Snchaud Gambit : 1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4!? f5, 3.g4! [A 80]
by Dany Snchaud 43
10. The Jarvis System, by G. K. Gifford 56
UON 18 -1- May-August 2007

May August 2007 UON 18
Opening Remarks & Chess Cartoon

One thing I enjoyed about UON was
that I would often be inspired to try
out an unorthodox opening over-the-
board or on-line after having played
over a few of the published games.
But, back in December I learned that
the adrenaline rush I was
experiencing, during such games, was
raising my blood pressure to a
dangerous level known as High Stage
2 So Ive pretty much had to give
up playing chess.
I was given medicines to lower the

blood pressure but I had very
adverse reactions which included a
loss of short term memory (it was
temporary). So now my chess is
limited to reading, problem solving,
and playing slow computer games. It
is better quality chess, no doubt but
not as exciting. Not as much fun.
Aside from that bit of news, Id like

to say that I am very thankful to the
contributors who did a great job of
putting their articles together and, in
most cases, adding the diagrams
which saved me a lot of time.
Good chess to all,
Sincerely,
Gary K. Gifford
Cleveland, Ohio U.S.A., April 26, 2007

The Benko Opening, 1.g3
by Tim Sanders
The Benko Opening (1.g3) remains one of my favorite openings as White.

Named after Pal Benko (who defeated both Fischer and Tal with it in 1962), it is
not usually considered Unorthodox, though Angus Dunnington includes it in his
Winning Unorthodox Openings. Dunnington comments:
White can either engineer a situation in which the fianchetto is an

unusual and significant addition to an otherwise traditional line, or
simply assume Blacks identity to add spice to a sound defense with
a move to spare. - Dunnington 1
I think perhaps, that flexibility is why it remains one of my favorites. It is versatile,

and I can transpose to a more played opening, or, as I usually do, guide it out of
book. It usually transposes to a Kings Indian Attack, which happens to be
another one of my favorite openings as White. I believe, in transposing to a
Queen Pawn game, and then 5.Bf4, I have clearly taken it into UCO waters.
Eric Schiller calls 1.g3 the Hungarian Attack (Benko was Hungarian). He
comments:
The move 1.g3 allows Black a great deal of flexibility in choice of

replies, but White is preparing to follow a formula and doesnt
really care. - Schiller
2
Here is a sample game I recently played on US Chess Live (GCS) over Spring
break.
boilermaker1 (2066) - Shermy (1865) [A00]

GCS GCS, 26.03.2007
1.g3 The Benko Opening, A00

1...Nf6 Not the most common reply lately. Fischer used it unsuccessfully in 1962 v. Benko
2.Bg2 the natural move.
2..g6 Black also wants to fianchetto? Also Fischers second move in 1962.
3.d4 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 Transposing to a "normal" Queen's Pawn 3.g3 g6"opening.
5.Bf4 heading into lesser-charted waters, only 3 games in my 1.6 mil game database, 2 white
losses, 1 draw.

After 1.g3 Nf6 2.Bg2 g6 3.d4 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bf4
5...c6 6.Nc3 0-0 Chiron (2224) - NoonianChess (2107), 1-0, ICC 2004.02.01
7.0-0 Nbd7 8.Qd2 Prystenski (2336) - Marcos Nozar (2419), ICCF, 2001, 1/2-1/2
8...Re8 9.Rad1 Nb6 10.b3
10..Nbd7 Black wastes momentum.
11.Bh6 e5 Bxh6 slightly better.. 12.Bxg7 Kxg7
13.Ng5?! a blunder? dxe5 better.
13...e4? exd4 best, Black chooses to advance the pawn.
14.a3 Ng4 15.Qf4 Ndf6 16.h3 Nh6 17.g4 Qe7
18.Ra1 e3? Nhg8 best
19.b4 probably better to take the e3 pawn, fxe3, I may regret not doing that.
19...Bxg4 Time remaining: White 10:31, Black 8:14
20.hxg4 Nhxg4 21.f3 Nf2 22.Nh3 Nh5 23.Qh2 Nxh3+ Qh4 better I think.
24.Qxh3 Qd6 25.Qg4 Re6 26.Qg5 f6 27.Qg4 f5 28.Qg5 Nf4 29.Rab1 h6
30.Qg3 Nxe2+ I think Black forgot about my Knight on c3, his comment after the game was
"Aarghh!"
31.Nxe2 Black resigned, Time remaining: White ~ 6 minutes, Black 2:49
1-0
Here is another game I posted on the UCO group last year.

I really like the Benko. While considered UCO, it still allows for
rapid development and castling, while uncommon enough to catch many
opponents unprepared.
boilermaker1 (2029) - hovard (1818)

GCS GCS, 02.08.2006
1.g3 Benko opening. Korchnoi, Tal, Hickl, Miles, and Larsen have all
used it.
1...e6 Rather uncommon reply to 1.g3 Most common is d5, e5, g6 or
Nf6. 2.Bg2 the natural move.

2...d5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d3 (4. c4 would transpose to English Neo-Catalan,
but as UCO player I choose the path less traveled)
4...b6 As is Planinec-Lombardy Amsterdam 1974 0-1.
5.Nc3 Transposing to a Reti/KIA, but no games in my db match this.
More common would be to castle.
5...Bb7 6.0-0 (Bf4 more aggressive, though Speelman and Minasian have
played 6.0-0)
6...d4 7.Nb5 c5 8.Bf4 Nd5
9.Bg5 (Nd2 looks better in hindsight)
9...f6 10.Bd2 a6 11.Na3 Qd7( Bd6 better )
12.Nc4 Be7 13.Qc1 Maybe e4 would have been better?
13...0-0 14.c3 dxc3
15.bxc3 At this point, I judge the game roughly even..
15...Qc7 16.e4 b5 17.exd5 bxc4 18.dxc4 exd5 19.cxd5 Bxd5 20.Re1 Bd6
21.c4 Bc6 22.Rb1 Nd7
23.Qc2 (Bc3 slightly better, game still very even)
23...Rab8 24.Qf5 Rxb1 25.Qe6+ Kh8
26.Rxb1 Nb6 First major mistake by either side. Moving the
rook (to a,b,c,or d8 for example) would be better. Black has less
time, but is not really under time pressure yet.
27.Rxb6 Qxb6 28.Qxd6 Rd8 29.Qf4 Qb1+ 30.Bf1 Qd1? (Qe4or Bb7 best,
this is a major blunder by Black)
31.Qc7 Black resigns, for he has lost Bishop at best. A lower
rated player would have not had the foresight to resign. After
31..Rxd2 32. Nxd2 h6 (a5 would be mate in 2) 33.Qxc6 Qxd2 34. Qxc5
Qd8 35. Qd5 Qe8 Black would be down a piece and pawn. 1-0
So, is 1.g3 UCO? Here is my support for it being UCO:
1. It is in Dunningtons Winning Unorthodox Openings.

2. It occurs just 0.6% in my 1.4 million game database
3. While it can transpose to more common, orthodox openings, there is
ample opportunity for White to head off out of book.
References:
1. Dunnington, Angus, Winning Unorthodox Openings, 2000, Everyman Publishers,

London, UK.
2. Schiller, Eric, Standard Chess Openings, 2002, Cardoza Publishing, New York City, NY.

Sicilian Defence: Mongoose Variation
by FM Eric Schiller
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Qa5 Well, this is one way to prevent the normal Sicilian play with
3.d4! White must now find a different plan. Black can use this move order to
reach standard Pterodactyl lines.
3.c3 is very appropriate, aiming for an Alapin Sicilian where the queen is not well
situated. One has to admit, however, that if White does not customarily play a
Alapin Sicilian, the player may not know how to handle trhe position. So as a
practical matter, the opening is not unplayable as Black. In this game, we see
that White does not know what to do. I should point out that Stefanova is a rising
superstar in chess, having earned her Grandmaster norms.
3.c4 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.d4 is a Pterodactyl.;
3.Be2 is recommended by Khalifman in his Anand repertoire series. 3...g6
Black does best by heading to a Pterodactyl. 4.O-O Bg7 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4
Nc6 7.Nb3 Qb4 8.c4 White sets up a Maroczy Bind. 8...d6 9.Bd2 Qb6
10.Nc3 Be6 11.Be3 Qd8 12.Nd5 Nf6 13.f3 O-O 14.Qd2 is a long path to a
transposition to known theory.
14...Nd7!? Black's best try. (14...Rc8 15.Rac1 Ne5 16.a3 (16.Bxa7 Ra8

17.Bb6) 16...Qd7 17.Nd4 b6 18.Rfd1 Nc6 19.Nxc6 Rxc6 20.b4 1/2-1/2,
Bossuyt vs. Boey, Belgium 1996; 14...b6 15.Rad1 Re8 16.Bh6 Nd7
17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.f4 Qc8 19.Rc1 (19.f5 gxf5 20.exf5 Bxd5 21.cxd5 Nce5
22.Bb5) 19...Nc5 20.Qc3+ 1-0, Schmid vs. Gupta, Moscow 1956)
15.Rac1 a5 16.Nf4 (16.Nd4!?) 16...a4 17.Nd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Qa5!=
19.Rfd1 Qxd2 20.Rxd2 Bxd4+ 21.Rxd4 Rfc8 22.Nd5 Bxd5 23.Rxd5 Rc5
24.Rc3 Ra6 25.Ra3 1/2-1/2, Zvjaginsev vs. Kempinski, Istanbul (Turkey)
2003
3...g6 4.Bc4?! There is not going to be any serious pressure at f7, so the Bishop
does nothing here. 4...Nc6 5.O-O b5 6.Be2 Bg7 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 d6 We have
a form of Modern Defense where Black has gotten in ...b5 for free. Black is
behind in development, however, and it will take some time to castle.
9.Nc3 b4 10.Nd5 Bg4 Pressure on d4 is an important theme in such positions,

so Black undermines its support. 11.Be3 e6 12.Nf4 Nge7 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Bxf3 O-
O At the cost of the bishop pair, Black has finished developing. White's
advantage is minimal. 15.Qd2 Rac8 16.Rfd1 Rfd8 17.a3 b3 18.Qd3 Qa4
19.Rac1 e5 20.dxe5 Nxe5 21.Rxc8 Nxc8 and Black was stuck with a problem
on the d-file in Sulistya vs. Stefanova, Yerevan Olympiad 1996.

The h6 Hero part 2
The games of Philip J. du Chattel

by Davide Rozzoni with comments by IM Gerard Welling
The first part of this article is a follow up from UON 16, e-mail conversations with
International Master Gerard Welling (See UON 16 for Part 1)
A few weeks after Uon 16 was published, I was contacted by I.M. Gerard Welling who
also had an interest in du Chattels chess. What follows is part of our correspondence.
By accident I noticed your article on Philip du Chattel, in the Unorthodox Newsletter

nr.16. A few months ago, I was in contact with an old chess friend who is also from the
Netherlands. He wrote about your search for du Chattel and his games. This awoke
some sentiments from my youth. In the winter of 1974-75 du Chattel played in the Dutch
championship 1/2 finals and qualified for the Dutch championship. The comment from
the Dutch chess press was something like "du Chattel often had bad positions, but was
on his best then". Schaakbulletin magazine published a game with some notes,
R.Faase - P. du Chattel where black opens 1..g6 and adopts a waiting formation. He
blunders a pawn, initiates a counterattack and eventually wins in fine style. () Faase
was quite a strong player at the time, and this game made an impression on me, a 15
year old junior. I started to adopt his opening with 1..g6 and pawns on the 3rd rank. In
the Dutch championship, du Chattel played interesting games and did not do badly. He
later told me - however - that for himself the final result was a disappointment. Besides
Borm-du Chattel, a game shown to me by Frans Borm a few weeks before it was
published, the game du Chattel-Van der Sterren was a beautiful game and a candidate
for the brilliancy prize as well. ( ) Another reason to adopt the man's opening play in
my own games ..on occasion ( I played many different things ). In 1976, du Chattel
played a league game in Eindhoven and after a tough fight ( which he lost ), I invited him
for a few blitz games. He kindly declined, as a junior I did not realise that he had just
suffered some gruelling hours, and was just tired. Very soon Philip du Chattel
disappeared from the chess scene. () Then, a few years later, Philip du Chattel
returned to tournament chess. Before that, I saw him play 1..g6 and 2..c6 ( or reversed )
and often .Nh6 later. And now he played 1.e4 Nh6 and 1.d4 g6 2.e4 Nh6 every time. In
his "second career" I played him once. At the time my rating was higher than his ( maybe
2360 to 2260 ) but not enough to make it a clear case. Which was proven by the fact that
he outplayed me in the opening stages, with 1.b3 Nh6!. I hoped to win the psychological
battle by stopping ..Nh6 and he just did it anyway.. At one point, he went for material
gains which he should not have, as my pieces were very active after that and a piece
sacrifice drew his king into the open (..) I also witnessed the game Ian Rogers-Philip du
Chattel directly, as a played on a neighbouring board. Philip was completely winning, but
his nerves did not stand the strain in time trouble. He is right that it went on for some
time after the notation stops. After the game I asked him why he played 1.e4 c6 2.c4
Nh6, and his answer was typical. A friend showed him in "Chess Informant" that Rogers
plays 1.e4 c6 2.c4 and now Philip had a chance for a very personal move order idea
because in his opinion black's chances improve in the lines where white plays c4.. After
1..Nh6 however, Rogers probably would not play d4 and c4... () I did not see the game

Gelpke-du Chattel before, but it is very interesting to see that the two played. Peter
Gelpke has also given up chess a long time ago ( he is not old, must be about 45 now )
As a junior he knew a lot about theory, but in the last years of his chess career, when he
still was able to score some good results and to gain the IM-title, he tried to sidestep it.
Interesting enough, he used du Chattel's defence in a crucial game where he had to win
with black in order to qualify for the Dutch championship. He defeated IM Gert Jan de
Boer with it. (Note by Rozzoni the following is the game Gerard mentions):
De Boer,G (2390) Gelpke,P [A42]

NED Ch sf B Eindhoven NED (7), 1988
1.f3 c6 2.c4 g6 3.c3 g7 4.d4 d6 5.e4 h6 6.e2 f6 7.d5

a6 8.0-0 c7 9.d2 0-0 10.b4 f7 see diagram11.b3 f5
12.ad1 e6 13.exf5 gxf5 14.dxe6 xe6 15.fe1 a5 16.a3
axb4 17.axb4 d7 18.f1 f6 19.a4 ad8 20.c3 g6
21.b6 fe8 22.xg7 xg7 23.c3 e6 24.d4 g5
25.h1 f6 26.c2 f7 27.d3 xe1 28.xe1 g6 29.f3
e4 30.g1 e6 31.d2 g5 32.xe4 fxe4 33.c3 f8
34.d1 d8 35.c5 d5 36.h3 f6 37.g3 f7 38.h4 f4
39.e1 h8 0-1
(diagram after 10....f7)
Eventually he played nothing else but a few league games, with occasional du Chattel-
openings. It must be around 1991 when I played Peter Gelpke in a rapid chess event -
must have been one of his last chess events - and he answered my 1.b4 with 1..f6!? but
then followed up with ..g6,..Nh6 and Nf7 and set up his du Chattel-formation ( and
eventually won an exciting game ).
I wish you good luck with this interesting opening... du Chattel was a good player
besides being an original thinker in chess. I remember that I liked the game De Roode-
du Chattel very much, it is such a positionally clear cut game, and I can still recommend
you to pay it close attention !
Gerard also wrote: During the years I had some conversations with Philip du Chattel. I
did not really know him, but we had some topics in common. One was my question if he
was going to publish about his opening. He was not averse of the idea, but
It would mean that he had to create a new opening repertoire with

his "secrets" available to everyone.
He preferred to publish himself so had to think about a way to do

that.
Unfortunately the plans did not materialize.
When we discussed the move order of his system he told me that he used 1.e4 Nh6 earlier
as well, but in his "first career" preferred to make a few other moves first. In my opinion

it most often comes to the same positions. It is a safer option to start with 1..g6 or 1..c6
( he did that in the Dutch Championship and the opening was given as "Caro Kann" and
that is what he points out in his comment to Borm-du Chattel ). But 1..Nh6 is
provocative and gives the opponent more chances, and when you believe in the opening ,
also more chances to go wrong. Matter of taste!
In a weekend Swiss around 1980 I have played 1.e4 Nh6 in order to transpose into "du
Chattel-territory" but my opponent Erik van de Raaf played 2.g4!? without thinking ...
Eventually I played 2..e5 and the game later transposed into a Scotch opening with the
white pawn on g5. I lost that game, but I do not remember how ..
What I can advise you, is to play over the other openings that du Chattel played as well.
He often played Closed Sicilian with Nh3 which is not very well known and gives
interesting play. The first game, after De Roode-du Chattel, that I recommend you to look
at is du Chattel-Van der Sterren from the Dutch championship. These closed types of
position are in fact du Chattel setups where white has got his pawn on e4 already.
Note by Rozzoni heres the game:
du Chattel,F (2200) Van der Sterren,P (2200)

[B20]
NED Ch Leeuwarden NED (4), 1975
1.e4 g6 2.g3 g7 3.g2 c5 4.f4 c6 5.h3 d6 6.0-0 e6 7.d3

ge7 8.c3 see diagram 0-0 9.a3 b8 10.c2 b5 11.a3 a5
12.d2 b4 13.axb4 axb4 14.f5 exf5 15.exf5 xf5 16.xf5 gxf5
17.h5 bxc3 18.xc3 d4 19.e3 g6 20.d5 f6 21.a7 b5
22.xf6 xf6 23.g5 h6 24.xf7 xa7 25.xh6+ g7
26.hxf5+ 1-0
Diagram after 8.c3
Gerard: I am interested in games, but I do not collect for quantity. I prefer to have two
good games with a theme, to having twenty bad ones. The games should be examples,
inspiration. That is why looking at du Chattel's games is interesting, because there is a
good amount of quality.
Davide: I realize that I still do not know your opinion on the soundness or unsoundness
of Philips system. I believe that UON readers would really like to know it, as they go
through du Chattel games. You [Welling] are a respected player in the UCO world! For
instance see Schillers words about you in his book Unorthodox Chess Openings 1st
edition, page 36.
Gerard: About the soundness or unsoundness of du Chattel's system. Well, we do not

know, but I have my own opinion: This kind of opening, essentially waiting and
anticipating, has practical advantages, as you essentially play the same setup against
virtually everything. It saves energy as well. The disadvantage is that a (very) strong
opponent will have a small advantage, a little bit of space, slightly more actively placed
pieces. That is why I noticed that the opening works very well against players up to a

certain standard. Above that standard, it can be a handicap, and it might be better to
play "classical moves." In short, I think the opening is playable, and cannot be refuted,
but against a strong opponent, is more difficult to play than a classical opening (in which
instance there are often more standard moves to make).
So long as an opening is considered dubious, it may be played.

- GM Xavier Tartakower
Acknowledgments
I want to express my gratitude to Gerard Welling and Philip J. du Chattel for their help
and support for the making up of this article. D.R
The games From 1974 to 1984 - Chronological Order
It is possible that du Chattel started to play his system before the following game.
Nevertheless, those games are currently missing. All of the following games contain
some notes, which are by me (D. Rozzoni), except when otherwise stated.
Ligterink,Gert (2360) du Chattel,Philip J [B06] sf ch Arnhem (3), 1974

1.e4 g6 2.d4 c6 3.f3 g7 4.e2 h6!? 5.c3 d6 6.0-0 0-0
7.f4 f6 8.d2 [8.d5!?] 8...f7 9.ad1 e6 10.a4 d7 11.e3
e7 12.e1 d8 13.f4 f5 14.f3 h6 15.d3 f8 16.fe1 d5
17.e5 a5 18.b3 h7 19.f2 d7 20.c1 f8 21.h1 g5 22.g3
h8 23.g1 g4 24.h4 f7 25.h3 h5 26.hxg4 hxg4 27.g2
c5 28.b5 ac8 29.dxc5 xb5 30.axb5 [30.xb5?! xc5
31.e2 xg1 32.xg1 g6 33.xg6 xg6=] 30...xc5 31.e3
b6 32.d4 f8 33.h1 hg6 34.xg6 xg6 35.h6 g7
36.dh1 h8 37.xh8 xh8 38.f1 -
(final position)
And now lets see the crucial chess event in du Chattels chess life: his participation in
the 1975 Dutch Chess Championship. When I asked him: What were your feelings when
you realized you would participate in such an important event? he answered:
o Elation because I was at the end of a self-imposed three year program to reach the
top of the Dutch chess world and the program was on course.
o Awe because I would have to confront chess players of the stature of Jan Timman.
o And finally curiosity and anticipation, because it would be my first really big
tournament.

To my question, regarding as to if he had any memories of that tournament, he replied:
The nicest memory is about the game with white vs. Rob Hartoch. Ill give it in short
notation:
1.e4 c5 2. d3 Nc6 3.c3 g6 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 e5 6. Nh3 Nge7 7. Be3 d6 8. f3 b6

9. Qd2 h6 10. c4 Be6 11. Nc3 Qd7 12. Nf2 Nd4 13. h4 h5 14. b4 cxb4 15. Bxd4
exd4 16. Ne2 b5 17. cxb5 Qxb5 18. Rab1 Rab8 19. 0-0 0-0 20. f4 f5 21. Rfe1
Kh8 22. e5 Qb6 23. Nh3 Bd5 27. Nf4 Ne3 check 28. Rxe3 dxe3 29. Qxe3 draw.
In those days, when mankind had hardly outgrown running around in deerskins
with flint axes, there were guys who ran between the players room and that for
the spectators. Their task was to keep the show/demonstration boards in the
spectator room up to date. One of them told me afterwards that when he
delivered 29. Qxe3 he was sent back: this move could not be.
Talking about deer-skins: I remember being seriously underdressed at the

awards ceremony at the end of the tournament. You can think of T-shirt and
jeans versus the power suits of the dignitaries.
Philip played an early h6 six times in that tournament, scoring 2 wins and 4
losses against Hollands best players. He also played an early h3 as White
against Hartoch (draw), Van der Sterren (win) and Ree (loss).
It may seem that the first real test for an early h6 might not have been a real
success, but as we look through the games, one has the feeling that Black had
some interesting drawing & sometimes even winning lines. This is the 1975
Dutch Championship cross table
NED Ch Leeuwarden 1975 Average elo: 2320 <=> Category: 3
1 2 3 456789012
1 Timman,Jan H 2510 *11111111 9.5/11
2 Bohm,Hans 2300 *1111111 9.0/11
3 Ree,Hans 2470 *01111 7.0/11 34.75
4 Hartoch,Rob 2375 01*111 7.0/11 32.75
5 Schouten,Nico 2200 00*1011011 6.0/11
6 Dieks,Roy G 2305 000*1101 5.0/11 23.75
7 Vogel,Jaap 2335 001*01 5.0/11 23.75
8 Enklaar,Bert 2410 0000*1011 4.5/11 20.00
9 du Chattel,Philip 2200 0000010*111 4.5/11 17.00
10 Borm,Frans 2200 00001010* 3.5/11
11 Van der Sterren,Paul 2200 0000100*0 2.5/11 12.75
12 Van Dop,Arend J 2340 00000001* 2.5/11 10.25

Van Dop,A (2340) du Chattel,P (2200) [B06] ch Leeuwarden NED (1), 1975
1.e4 c6 2.d4 g6 3.c3 d6 4.a4 g7 5.e2 h6 6.e3 f6 7.h4
0-0 8.h5 g5 9.d2 f7 10.f4 [10.f3] 10...gxf4 11.xf4 e5
12.h6 h8 13.e3 f5 14.dxe5 [14.0-0-0!?] 14...xe5 15.f3
g3+ 16.d1 [16.f2 xf2+ 17.xf2] 16...f6 17.c1
[17.d4] 17...a6 18.a3 c5 19.d4 g6 20.exf5 xf5
21.g7 e6 22.b1 [22.h4; 22.xf8?? f4-+] 22...xg7
23.hxg7 xg7 24.d4 d7 25.d3 g5 26.e4 f4 27.d1
[27.xg5 see diagram 27...xd2 28.xh7+ h8 29.f5+ g8
30.h7+ ] 27...h6 [27...xe4 28.xe4 h6] 28.xg5 xg5
29.b3 f4 30.f3 e6 [30...g4] 31.a3 [31.xg5 xb3]
31...g4 32.e2 e8 33.e1 fe4 34.c4+ d5 35.xe4 xe4
36.xd5+ cxd5 37.xd5+ e6 0-1
Bohm,H (2300) du Chattel,P (2200) [A40] ch Leeuwarden NED (3), 1975

1.d4 g6 2.c3 d5 3.f4 g7 4.e3 f6 5.d2 e5 6.g3 h6 7.gf3 f7 [7...e4] 8.dxe5 fxe5 9.e4
c6 10.d3 d7 11.0-0 0-0 12.b4 a5 13.a3 e8 [13...f6] 14.c2 f8 15.fe1 g5 16.b3 h5
17.h4 g4 18.xg5 [18.bd2] 18...xg5 19.hxg5 xg5 20.d2 xd2 21.xd2 f7 [21...h6]
22.f3 d7 23.b3 axb4 24.axb4 ad8?! [24...xa1 25.xa1 c8] 25.a7 c8 26.f2 e6
27.b6 d6 28.c5 xc5 29.xc5 f8 [29...dd8] 30.xd6 xd6 31.a8 g8 [31...d4 32.cxd4
exd4 33.b5] 32.f2 e7 33.h1 h4 34.c2 e6 35.b3 d6 36.exd5 cxd5 37.a5 e6
38.xd5 h3 39.gxh3 h4+ 40.e3 g2 41.xe6 xe6 1-0
Dieks,R (2305) du Chattel,P (2200) [A00] ch Leeuwarden NED (5), 1975

1.g3 g6 2.g2 c6 3.c4 g7 4.c3 h6 5.e4 d6 6.ge2 f5
7.d4 0-0 8.exf5 xf5 9.h3 d7 [9...a6] 10.0-0 f5 11.c5 d5
12.f4 a6 13.a3 b6 14.b4 bxc5 15.bxc5 a5 16.d2
[16.xd5 cxd5 17.xd5+ e6 18.xa8 xa8] 16...xc5 17.dxc5
xg3 18.xg3 xc3 19.a2 xc5+ 20.h2 xa1 21.xa1
ab8 22.f5 b3 23.h6 f6 24.g5 f7 25.fxg6 hxg6 26.xf7
xf7 27.h8 c3 28.h7+ g7 29.h4 xa3? [29... e8!]
30.b4 e5 31.xa3 xg5 32.xa7 e6 33.c7 c1
34.e2 c4 [34...e3] 35.f4 see diagram 35...c5?!
[35...f5!?] 36.d3 d6+ 37.e5+ f6 38.xd6 exd6
39.xc6 g5 40.g3 f7 41.b4 d4 42.d3 e6 43.e4 c4
44.f2 e6 45.d3 d5 46.g4 e6+ 47.h5 f5 48.g4+
e6 49.c4+ d5 50.b3 b1 51.xg5 d3 52.e3 e5
53.xd5 d2 54.f3 d4 55.d1 c2 56.h4 h7 57.f6 b1 58.h5 h7 59.h6 b1 60.g4 c2
61.g7 b1 62.h7 xh7 63.xh7 e5 64.g6 f4 65.e2 e5 66.g5 e4 67.g4 e5
68.f3 d4 69.f4 d5 70.e3 e5 71.xd2 d4 72.c3 e5 73.e3 f5 74.d4 e6
75.d5 f7 76.e5 g6 77.f4 h6 78.f5 g7 79.g5 f7 80.g4 g7 81.e6 h7
82.f6 h8 83.f5 g8 84.c3 h8 85.e4 g8 86.g5 h8 87.f7+ g8 88.d3 f8
89.h6 e8 90.e6 f8 91.f7 g7 92.e4 f8 93.f6 e8 94.f5 f8 95.h7 e8 96.e5
d8 97.e6 c7 98.d5 b6 99.c6 c7 100.f5 b6 101.g4 b5 102.d1 b6 103.a4
c7 104.e5 b6 105.c4+ c7 106.c6 d8 1-0

Borm,F (2200) du Chattel,P (2200) [B06] ch Leeuwarden NED (7), 1975
0 1 - The game won the Brilliancy Price - see UON 16 page 11
Schouten,N (2200) du Chattel,P (2200) [A40] ch Leeuwarden NED (8), 1975

1.d4 c6 2.f4 d6 3.e4 g6 4.c4 g7 5.f3 e6 6.0-0 f6 7.d3
h6 8.b4 0-0 9.a4 f7 10.bd2 d5 11.b3 g5 12.xb8 xb8
13.c4 dxe4 14.xe4 f5 15.e2 c5 16.ad1 cxd4 17.c5 g4
18.e1 e5 19.f3 h5 20.d3 g5 21.f4 exf4 22.xf4 d7
23.c4 be8 24.f2 h7 25.e2 e5 26.xe5 xe5 27.xd4
g7 28.c2 xd4 29.xd4 c8 30.d6 see diagram
30...g5 [better is 30...e7, although White stands better] 31.c6
e7 32.b5 h4 33.f4 xf4 34.xf4 g7 35.cxb7 xb7 36.d5
bf7 37.c5 h6 38.h3 e6 39.a5 f6 40.b6 axb6 41.axb6
b8 42.b4 gxh3 43.gxh3 c8 [43...d7 44.c7 d6 45.xh4+
g5 46.b4] 44.xh4+ g7 45.c7+ f7 46.xf7+ xf7
47.h8 f6 48.b7 xb7 49.xc8 g5 50.c5 f7 51.g2 f8
52.g3 f6 53.h4+ h5 54.xf5 h6 55.g4 a6 56.e4 e6
57.h5+ g7 58.f4 h6 59.g5+ [59.xh6??=] 59...h8 60.h5 f6+ 61.f5 a6 62.g6 a4+
63.g5 a7 1-0
du Chattel,P (2200) Ree,H (2470) [A00] ch Leeuwarden NED (9), 1975

01 See UON 16 - page 7
Enklaar,B (2410) du Chattel,P (2200) [A42] ch Leeuwarden NED (10), 1975

1.e4 g6 2.d4 c6 3.c4 d6 4.c3 g7 5.e2 h6 6.h4 f6 7.e3
0-0 8.d2 f7 9.0-0-0 e5 10.f4 e7 11.f3 a6 12.ge2
c7 13.b1 f5 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.d5 d8 16.a1 b6 [16...b4
17.d3 d6 18.g5 d7 19.exf5 xc4 20.b3 cxd5] 17.h5 f4
18.hxg6 hxg6 19.f2 c5 [19...a6] 20.c1 e8 21.e2 f6
22.b3 g5 23.h5 d6 [23...xh5 24.xh5 h6] 24.g3
xh5 25.xh5 f3 26.d3 g4 27.h2 f6 28.d2 a6 29.f1
f8 30.g1 f7 31.d1 g6 32.e3 d7 33.d1 a5 [33...g4]
34.c3 af8 35.e3 g4 36.d1 c8 37.f2 b5 38.c1 b4
39.ch1 f6 40.h5 f7 41.xe5 h6 42.g5 xh1+
43.xh1 see diagram 43...f6?? [43...e8! 44.e5 f7 45.e6
xe6 46.h5 h6 47.xh6 xh6 48.dxe6 xe6 49.xh6
xh6 50.f2 and the endgame is open to all the results] 44.e5
h6 45.f2 f7 46.xg4 h2 47.xf3 g2 48.e6 a4 49.exd7 1-0

Schuit du Chattel [B06] 09.1984
1.d4 g6 2.e4 c6 3.c3 h6 probably the first game of du
Chattels 2nd career with Nh6 4.h4 d5 [4...g7] 5.e5 f6 6.f4
f7 7.exf6 exf6 8.d2 g7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.d3 a6 11.f3
c7 12.h5 g5 13.e3 h6 14.g4 e6 see diagram
[14...b5!?] 15.ge2 f7 16.g3 f8 17.ce2 g7 18.b1

e7 19.hg1 e6 20.c1 b5 21.ce1 d7 [21...a5] 22.c3
af8 23.c2 e8 [23...f5] 24.c1 g7 25.f5 xf5 26.gxf5
d6 27.f4 g4 28.g3 c7 29.e2 e8 30.ge1 ge7 31.d1
xe2 32.xe2 xe2 33.xe2 e8 34.xe8+ xe8 35.c2
f7 36.b3 c7 37.d1 d6 38.e2 e7 39.a3 d7
40.e3 a5 -
Hallebeek du Chattel [B06] 13.09.1984

1.e4 c6 2.d4 g6 3.c3 h6 4.f4 f6 5.d2 f7 6.c4 e6 7.h4 g7 8.f3 0-0 9.e5 d5 10.exd6
xd6 11.d3 f7 12.e4 h6 13.g4 [13.0-0-0] 13...e5 14.dxe5 fxe5 15.xe5 [15.g3] 15...xe5
16.xe5 xe5 17.xh6 xg4?! [17...e7 18.h5 xg4 19.hxg6 g7 20.xg7+ xg7 21.h7+
xg6 22.xb7 xd3+ 23.cxd3 d7] 18.c4+ -
Kraanen du Chattel [A40] 22.09.1984

1.d4 g6 2.e4 h6 3.c3 c6 4.f3 f6 5.e3 f7 6.d2 e6 7.d3 d6 8.ge2 a6 9.d1 c7
10.f2 g7 11.c3 d7 12.g4 e7 exercise in symmetry - du Chattel 13.0-0-0 b5 14.h4 d5
15.b1 0-0-0 16.c1 d6 17.b3 b7 18.he1 f7 19.h6 xh6 20.xh6 f8 21.c1 f5
22.e3 f6 23.g5 f7 24.e5 a5 25.h3 a4 26.c1 a5 27.f4 e7 28.f2 e8 -
Lindeboom du Chattel [B06] 29.09.1984

1.e4 g6 2.d4 h6 3.c3 c6 4.f4 d5 5.e5 f5 6.g4 g7 7.h3
h5 8.g2 a6 9.a3 d7 10.f3 c8 11.gxh5 gxh5 12.e3
f5 13.e2 e6 14.f3 h4 15.f2 e7 16.d2 b6 17.f1 c7
18.g1 see diagram
18...f8 [18...g6] 19.g5 c5 20.d3 xd3 21.xd3 f5

22.f3 c4 23.e2 b5 24.d1 e8 25.e3 eg7 26.xf5
xf5 27.g5 d7 28.g4 e8 29.c3 a5 30.d2 f8 31.f3
e7 32.e1 b8 33.c2 d7 34.e3 xe3 35.xe3 h6
36.f3 b7 37.f5 xe3+ 38.xe3 f8 39.e2 h6

Van Den Berg du Chattel [A40] 30.09.1984
1.d4 g6 2.c4 h6 3.c3 d6 4.e4 g7 5.f3 0-0 6.e2 c6 7.d5 e5 8.xe5 dxe5 9.0-0 c6
[9...f5!? 10.exf5 (10.c5 b6 11.c6 f4 12.d2 g5) 10...xf5 11.g5 f6 12.d2 d4] 10.dxc6
bxc6 11.e3 c7 12.f3 f5 13.c5 e6 14.b4 fxe4 15.fxe4 xf1+ 16.xf1 f8 17.c1 g4
18.xg4 xg4 19.a4 d8 20.b5 d4?! 21.b1 c8 22.xd4 exd4 23.e2 e5 24.b6 axb6
25.cxb6 b7 26.a5 xe4 27.g3 d3 28.f1 e3+ 29.h1 d3 30.a6 xa6 31.b7 xb7
32.xb7 f6 33.b3 1-0
Duistermaat,H du Chattel [B00] 04.10.1984

1.e4 h6 2.d4 g6 3.h4 d6 4.h5 g7 5.hxg6 hxg6 6.c4 c5
7.f3 see diagram
7...e6 [7...g4!?] 8.dxc5 a5+ 9.c3 xc5 10.b3 [10.a3]
10...c6 11.e3 a5 12.d1 c7 13.a3 e7 14.d2 g4
15.xh8 xh8 16.g5+ f6 17.f4 a6 18.0-0-0 ge5 19.xe5
xe5 20.h6 f7 21.xg6 b5 22.e2 c5 23.c2 [23.f4]
23...g5+ 24.xg5 fxg5 25.cd4 d7 26.f4 gxf4 27.xf4
g5 28.g6+ f6 29.xh8 xh8 30.f1+ e7 31.e1 f8
32.e5 dxe5 33.xe5 f1+ 34.d2 f6 35.e1 f2+ 36.e2
f1 37.e3 e5 38.f3 xf3 39.gxf3 c6 40.f2 e1+
41.d2 b1 -
Van Der Tuuk,J du Chattel [B00] 11.10.1984

1.e4 h6 2.d4 g6 3.f4 f6 4.f3 f7 5.c4 e6 6.c3 g7 7.d2 d6 8.0-0-0 c6 9.h4 b5 10.d3
e5 [10...0-0 11.h5 g5 12.e3 b4 13.e2 a5 14.e5] 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.e3 e6 13.b1 d7
14.e2 f8 [14...c7 15.h5 d6] 15.h2 d6 16.f4 c5 17.fxe5 fxe5 18.c3 c4 19.g5 b6
20.e2 b4 21.d5 xe4 22.e3 xd5 23.xd5 xe3 24.xe3 g3 25.g4 f5 26.xf5 gxf5
27.hd1 d8 28.f3 e7 29.c1 c3 30.b3 f4 31.xa7 g8 32.xe5 xe5 33.xe5 xd1+
34.xd1 d7 35.e4 d6 36.e2 c6 [36...g4] 37.e1 a8 38.d4 d5 39.f6 xa2 40.f2
h5 41.g5 a1 42.e1 xe1 -
Driedonks,A du Chattel [A40] 25.10.1984

1.d4 g6 2.c4 h6 3.c3 c6 4.e4 f6 5.e3 d6 6.e2 f7
7.d2 a6 8.h4 e5 9.f3 g4 10.0-0-0 c7 11.e1 e6
[11...xe2] 12.d5 d7 13.h5 g5 14.g4 c5 15.c2 c8 16.b5
Diagram
16...c7 [16...xg4 17.f3 d7 18.dg1 c7] 17.ca3 a6

18.xc7+ xc7 19.b1 e7 20.c3 0-0 21.a1 fb8 22.b4
b6 23.b5 c8 -

Schakel du Chattel [A10] 22.11.1984
1.c4 h6 2.d4 g6 3.f4 f6 4.f3 c6 5.c3 f7 6.e3 g7
7.e2 0-0 8.0-0 d6 9.h3 e5 10.g3 e7 11.dxe5 dxe5
12.c2 a6 13.ad1 f5 14.a3 c7 15.b4 a5 16.c5 axb4
17.axb4 e6 18.d2 a6 19.b1 fd8 20.c4 see diagram
20...b5 [20...f4 21.h2 (21.exf4? f5) 21...f3 22.gxf3 g5]

21.b6 ab8 22.d1 b7 23.f3 e4 24.e2 c7 25.c3
f6 26.a2 a8 27.xa8 xa8 28.c1 d5 [28...ba7]
29.b3 ba7 30.a5 c3 31.xc3 xc3 32.fd1 d7
33.xd5 xd5 34.xc6 d3 35.xd3 exd3 36.d1 d2
37.e7+ f8 38.d5 a3 39.xc3 xc3 40.xd2 b3 1-0
Veerman,J du Chattel [A40] 13.12.1984

1.d4 g6 2.e4 h6 3.c4 c6 4.f3 f6 5.h4 d6 6.h5 g5 [6...b5!?
7.b3 g4 8.g3 xh5] 7.a4 e6 8.c3 g7 9.g3 d5
10.d3 dxe4 11.xe4 f7 12.ge2 f5 13.d3 f6 14.f4 g4
15.e3 b6 16.f2 a6 17.c4 b4 18.b3 d6 19.h2
d5 20.h4 a6 21.xf6 xf6 22.h4 xh4+ 23.xh4 c4
24.xc4 xc4 25.0-0-0 b4 26.g3 d8 27.f1 f7 28.e2
b5 29.b3 d6 30.c3 d5 31.xd5 exd5 32.axb5 cxb5
33.e3 e6 34.b2 a5 35.a1 a8 36.hh1 a4 37.hb1
hb8 38.a3 axb3 39.cxb3 b4 40.xa8 xa8 41.c1 see
diagram 41...e8 [41...c8 42.c5 xc5 43.dxc5 e4=]
42.c5 d7 43.xd5 e2+ 44.c2 e1 45.xb4 e4
46.d3 xd4 47.c5+ e7 48.e2+ f6 49.g3 e4
50.xe4+ fxe4 51.e3 f5 52.c3 d1 53.b4 h1 54.b5
xh5 55.d4 h1 56.b3 d1+ 57.e3 f1 58.e2 f3
59.xf3 gxf3+ 60.f2 g4 61.b6 e3+ 62.xe3 xg3 63.b7 f2 64.b8 f1 65.g8+ h2
66.xh7+ g1 67.g6+ h2 68.f5 c1+ 69.e4 b1+ 70.e5 b2+ 71.e6 b3+ 72.f6
c3+ 73.f7 c7+ 74.g8 d8+ 75.h7 d7+ 76.h6 d2+ 77.g5 d6+ 78.f6 f8+
79.h7 1-0
Verhoeven,T Du Chattel,P [A40] tt Netherlands tt, 1984

1.d4 g6 2.c4 h6 3.c3 c6 4.e4 f6 5.f3 f7 6.e2 g7 7.e3 d6 8.0-0 e6 9.b4 0-0 10.b3
d7 11.ad1 g5 12.fe1 e8 13.d2 f5 14.f1 f8 15.h5 g6 16.f3 d7 17.b5 a5 18.a4
ac8 19.h1 f4 20.f2 a6 [20...c5 21.e2 cxd4 22.xd4 fe5 23.d2 c7 24.c1] 21.bxa6
bxa6 22.e5 d5 [22...b8!?] 23.b1 h6 24.b4 xb4 25.xb4 f5 26.b7 ed8 27.c5 a8
28.a5 c8 29.c7 ge7 30.b1 f8 31.a4 g7 32.g4 h5 33.b6 b8 34.h3 h7 35.d2
g6 36.xc8 dxc8 37.xc8 xc8 38.b7 ef5 39.xf5+ xf5 40.b1 g7 41.c3 g4
42.e2 h6 43.b6 g3 44.e1 h4 45.d2 g5 46.xa6 h3 47.hxg3 fxg3 48.xg5 xg5
49.gxh3 h4 50.a7? b8 51.h7+ g5 52.a6 b1+ 53.g1 b2 54.e2 xe2 55.a7 f4
56.a8 e1+ 57.g2 e3# 0-1
More Du Chattel games in UON 19 For that occasion I will try to find at least an
approximate ELO rating of du Chattels opponents. D.R.

Loss of Time and Space
the Wonderful World of the Brooklyn Defence
Edited by James Pratt; March 2006 printing of a
2003 chessparrot publication.
Reviewed by Tim Sanders, Feb. 2007, tsanders12@yahoo.com
Having played the Alekhine Defence, but not the Brooklyn [Retreat
variation] I found this an interesting idea. Previously, I have almost always played 2..Nd5 after
whites 2.e5. I had never really considered the move 2..Ng8. Frankly, the idea of retreating
seemed
like a waste of time.
Eric Schiller, on page 38 of his Unorthodox Chess Openings, 2nd edition, states that the opening is
playable, but comments that white is achieving a small advantage by developing normally.
At approximately 6x8 inches, and just 31 pages, Loss of Time & Space is a small, unassuming
booklet (which I will refer to as L.O.T.A.S.). However, it contains a wealth of information on
this line of the Alekhine. The booklet was edited by James Pratt, a UCO member, and moderator
of his own Yahoo group, chessparrot - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chessparrot
L.O.T.A.S. is surprisingly thorough and also pleasant to read. It includes about 20 games, from
1860 to 1995; in which Pratt covers the main lines of this defense. I was particularly intrigued by
Nimzowitsch-Albin (p.15), Faure-Horn (p.21), and Hund-Krum (p.25). These games featured
3.d4 d5 4.Bd3. Albin played 4..e6, Horn and Krum played 4..c5. Albin lost; Horn and Krum
won, even though Burgess says 4..e6 is much better (p.15). L.O.T.A.S. also examines 3.d4 d6,
3.d4 c5, others, and transpositions.
Though Pratt says he just edited the booklet, I think he is being modest. Consider, for example,
the following excerpt from his prelude to Schirmer vs. Rhodes, 1988:
black survives Morra like pressure, slowly relieves his cramp,

copes with his organic weakness on d6 and patiently accepts that
castling is not viable. When White sees that his gambit (5. c3!?)
has yielded only a temporary initiative, he attempts to regain
material (33. Bxh7) but looses activity. The end comes soon
enough. Pratt, LOTAS, pg. 9
Pratt has also added insightful commentary to many of the other games, and even a useful
bibliography. In the Epilogue he thanks many people, many of whom I recognized as members
of the UCO group.
So, if you are considering the Alekhine defense, I recommend this booklet. I think you will find
it quite useful and informative.
You can contact James Pratt at: chessparrot@hotmail.com

His group is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chessparrot

The Unicorn Defense
by Gustav Fhager
Introduction
This is my first article for UON and hopefully it wont be my last. Normally I only share my surprise
weapons with the opponent but some time ago I stumbled upon a defense so amazing that I felt I
had to bring this to everyones attention (I use the word defense instead of variation to avoid
any mix-up with the variations within this defense). I have done careful analysis and in my eyes it
is fully sound. I hope that I do the opening justice since I believe that it can be a very viable way
to play. Like most surprise weapons however it looks crazy at first sight, but if you give it time you
will see how everything fits together nicely
1. e4 b6
2. d4 Bb7
Here white has several options, best of which is considered 3. Bd3. On 3. Nc3 and 3. f3 white
commits himself slightly, while we can either go into Owens defense after 3. e6, or the plan I
prefer; 3. g6. 3. Nd2 is interesting but very uncommon, although not bad. These sidelines are
actually outside the scope of this article. The Unicorn Defense follows after the main move.
3. Bd3 f6!?
This is the move in question and it took me a long time to find. Having played Owens defense I
was looking for new ideas that gave me more complex and challenging positions. This was one of
the last moves I expected to seize my interest. What we are after is to build a stronghold on e5. If
we can do that, all attacks from the opponent will fall short and the bishop at d3 will be misplaced.
That is the short version. White can of course push the e-pawn and that could very well be his
only way to gain an advantage actually, but after we exchange our f-pawn we get the central
majority. It may not seem like a big deal but it does give us certain dynamic possibilities.
Now to the most obvious question, Can white refute the defense or even get a solid advantage by
playing e5 right away, threatening mate in three? The answer is no, e5 has to be well-timed from
white.

The advance variation
I would recommend this opening especially in slow time controls and against opponents higher
rated than you. It is not easy for anyone to play against, so chances are a couple of hundred
rating points wont matter. Another thing is the issue of underestimating. After your opponent sees
the move 3. f6, he is probably pondering when the grocery store closes and eventually decides to
wrap the game up within the hour. And thats where this variation comes in as a way to challenge
and hopefully punish speculative play.
4. e5 g6
Stopping everything. Now 5. exf6 is bad due to 5. Bxg2!. 6. Qg4 Bd5. meanwhile 5. Qg4 is too
over-the-top and black can take advantage of the queens position. 5. Bg7 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bf4
Nb4 etc.
5. Nf3 Nc6
6. 0-0 fxe5
7. dxe5 Nh6
We are still alive, but all the moves so far has been forced. For example, if 7. e6? 8. Bg5 Be7
then 9. Qd2 wouldve been strong. Thats why the Nh6-f7 maneuver makes sense. It keeps the
white bishop away while preparing e6. If white plays 7. Nxe5 he is in for a lively game, an
example variation: 7. Bg7 8. Nxc6 Bxc6 9. d5 Bxd5 10. Bxg6+ hxg6 11. Qxd5 e6, where we
have counter play along the h-file.
8. Re1 Nf7
Here white has an option of playing 9. e6 which we didnt have time to prevent, but I dont think 9.
e6 is a good move in any case. After 9. dxe6 10. Rxe6 Nb4 he may have to part with the
bishop pair. And if he doesnt take the pawn right away we just develop our pieces and castle
queenside.
9. Nc3 e6
10. Bf4 Qe7
Here Bg7 is objectively just as good but i like the queen move better because it sets up a cute
trap. I think the black camp is solidified here. Whites attack was perhaps premature and now he
is left with the consequences. The e-pawn is very weak and the white pieces are tied down to its
defense. Meanwhile we will be counter-attacking. We will most likely castle queenside because

the king is hard to get to over there, and a black attack will happen at a much faster rate with g5
and h5. If white on his side tries a4 then a5 is a move we are happy to make. I will now end this
variation with the trap that demonstrates a common tactical motif. Let us examine the seemingly
natural Ne4, trying to create something before the black king escapes to the queen side.
11. Ne4?! Bg7
Now the pawn is threatened. And the only way to protect it would be to move the knight away.
The most appealing move for white is 12. Neg5 (if it would have worked).. I have caught several
people with this trap in standard games. They couldnt bring themselves to move the knight back
as in Nc3 or Ng3. After 12. Neg5? white loses at least a pawn, but more importantly, black will
have a great position with bishops slicing and dicing all across the board. Here are the variations
after 12. Ncxe5! (It is crucial to take with the right knight.)
a) 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Qxg5 and Bg7 is taboo due to the
mate on g2
b) 13. Bxe5 Nxg5 with a solid extra pawn.
c) 13. Nxf7 Nxf3+ gxf3 Qxf7 and the pawn on f3 is next
White may also give a check on f6 (instead of 12. Neg5?), 12. Nf6+ Bxf6 13 exf6 Qxf6 14 Bxc7.
And it looks at first glance like white is okay. Our nice bishop is gone and if we take on b2 then it
can be difficult to castle. However, there is a rule of thumb in this opening; we do not need the
dark-squared bishop if our queen can safely stay at f6. The queen and the knight fills that
bishops task. To illustrate this I made a new diagram after the simple move: 14. 0-0.

The queen is wonderful here. She dominates the board doing both defensive and offensive work
glancing down at b2 and f2 and we threaten to trap the bishop with d6. If Be4 then d5. Best white
move is Bc4, but the black position is indeed very promising.
These variations serve as a way to justify Qe7 as the tenth move rather than Bg7.
Lets move on ...
The raw variation

4. Nf3 g6
5. 0-0 Nh6
6. e5 fxe5
7. Nxe5 e6
It seems that we have given up to much for our precious central majority. And indeed this must be
the critical line, because white can take control over g5. However, black will castle quickly and
usually establish a knight at f5. After the tactical mess that follows it all comes down to who is
best prepared. This may sound clich, but in all fairness no one could find the right moves over
the board and the best that white can hope for is a small advantage in a somewhat drawish
position. A sacrifice on g6 in any fashion is unsound and has won me lots of blitz games: 8.
Nxg6? hxg6 9. Bxg6+ Nf7 and the attack is over thanks to the bishop and rook covering f3 and
h5 respectively. Even worse is 8. Bxg6+?? hxg6 9. Nxg6 Rg8 10. Qh5 Qf6 11. Nxf8 Nf7 and
white is the one in trouble. I had a game that went: 11. Ne5+ Qf7! I like to throw in moves like that
to show white that he is a victim of home preparation. 12. Qh3 Qf5. Game over!
There are still attacking chances for white in the other variations. And we need to castle as fast as
possible. 8. Nd2 is a sneaky move actually intending Ndf3 and is best answered by 8. Nc6.
There may follow, 9. Ne4! Nf5. Unclear!
8. Nc3 Bg7
9. Ne4 0-0
If 9. Be4 then d5 An unclear sequence is 9. Bxh6 Bxh6 10. d5, where after 10. Bf4 black will
have counter-play on the king-side. 10. Bg7 is also good.
10. Bg5 Qc8

The progress we have made is not stunning, but the king is safe and white has nothing concrete.
The best reaction for white is probably not to get into the mind-boggling complications that the
computer helped me assess.
a) 11. Be7 Rf4 12. Re1 d6 13. Nf3 Nc6 14. Bg5 Rf8 15. c3 Qd7. And we can start working
preparing e5 without any danger.
b) 11. Qd2 Nf5 12. Ng4!? (12. c3 c5 13. Ng4 leads to similar things) This is interesting.
Black cannot take the pawn immediately, but after: 12. d5! 13. Nef6+ Kh8 he gains
counter-play thanks to the knight being trapped at f6, and white having to find his way
through the maze, One way being: 14. Qe2 Nc6 15. Qf3! h5 16. Qh3. It looks as if the
white player is going to have the last laugh. And for the third time in a row taking the
pawn is not the answer. 16. Ncxd4 17. c3 Nc6 18. Rae1 would leave us in a hopeless
position. But there is one astounding move that keeps it all together.
16. Qd8!! The only thing more amazing than this move is the fact that white is best off forcing a
draw through 17. Ne4 Qc8 18. Nef6 Qd8!! etc.
c) 11. c3 The most sensible and natural move. 11. d5 12. Nd2. Believe it or not, but 12.
Ng3 leads to a forced draw: Nd7 c5 13. Qe2. (White gets nothing out of the forced
sequence 13. Qd2 Nf7 14. Be7 Re8 15. Nxf7 Rxe7 16. Nd6 Qc7 17. Nxb7 cxd4! 18. cxd4
Qxb7. And 13. Re1, fails to 13. Nc6 14. Nxc6 Qxc6 And now white needs to give up the
center and not go into 15. Qe2? cxd4 16. cxd4 Bxd4 17. Bxh6 Rxf2 18. Qxf2 Bxf2+ 19.

Kxf2 e5! with a crushing attack.) 13. Nc6 14. Nxc6 Qxc6 15. Rae1 c4 16. Bc2 Rae8.
Threatening e5. 17. f4 Nf5 Threatening h6 as well as Nxd4. 18. Nxf5 exf5 19. Qf2 Rxe1
20. Rxe1 Re8 21. Re3. White can not afford to give up the e-file. 21. h6 22. Bh4 Kf7!. A
draw is at hand. 12. c5 13. Ndf3 13. f4 is too risky with Nf5 coming up and after 13.
Ndf3 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Nf7 15. Nxf7 Rxf7 game is about equal. 13. Nc6. White has a
slight edge. And this is probably the best that white can hope for.
The slow variation

Compared with the last variation this one is less critical but more common. It starts when white
does e5 one move later. People generally want the rook behind the pawn before they advance.
But this gives us all the time we need.
4. Nf3 g6
5. 0-0 Nh6
6. Re1 Nf7
7. e5 Bg7
Black is now planning to take on e5, so white does best to capture himself. This line is pretty safe
for both players in terms of king safety. But it is also strategy at its finest. Whites natural idea is to
score a tempo on Bf6.
8. exf6 Bxf6
9. Nc3 0-0
10. Ne4 e6!

This is a psychological move that I highly recommend. It gives the white player a lot to consider
Taking the bishop is not advisable, because the b7-bishop will become a monster
which white has to exchange his best bishop for.
White has spent two tempi on bringing the knight to e4, if it turns out that black
can maintain the control over g5 the knight on e4 will feel a little silly.
Since both the e7- and the g7-sqaure is available the bishop can retreat either
way depending on what the opponent does. The only way for white to force a
retreat is to play Bf4 (threatening Bxc7) at some point, but if he tries that right
away black has the center-counter 11. c5!. for example: 12. dxc5 Bxb2 13.
Rb1 Bg7 and the bishop has the diagonal of his dreams. Or 12. Nd6 Bxf3! 13.
Qxf3 Nc6 where white is very uncomfortable
The knight on f3 that sometimes becomes a target does not have a useful square
as long as the enemy bishop stays on his post. Neither can it ever be
conveniently defended where it is.
All this puts white in a situation where he has to make a passive move.
11. c3 a5!?
Black enters the waiting game but it is actually more to it than that. I should point out that there
are other strategies as well. Either 11. Be7 playing for c5 or Bg7 planning Nc6-e7 is fine. This is
important to know if white plays a nonsensical move like 11. Qe2 then we can answer this with
11. Nc6, keeping all of these options open. The text move only works after 11. c3. The intention
[of the move 11. a5] is to take a firm grip on the g5-square through a4 and Ra5 defending it
along the fifth rank. This plan prods white to play Bf4 (12. Be3 a4 13. Qd2 Ra5 and black holds
the g5-square and is in good shape). 11. a5 also introduces the idea of a4-a3 breaking up the
white pawn chain.
12. Bf4 Be7
13. Qd2 a4
14. Ne5 Nc6
14. Ng5 Ra5 would transpose.
15. Nxf7 Rxf7
Now 16. Ng5 does not work due to Rxf4.
16. Bh6 Ra5
Thanks to the grip on g5 white can not make progress, but black is tangled up and his knight is
pretty pointless at the moment. Black has to keep g5 under control which means that our bishop

and our queen are sort of pinned. Our rook at a5 can not leave the fifth rank and the other rook is
stuck were it is. So why would anybody want to go in to this? Well, the position may be incredibly
complex, but in no way is black in any danger. And the right moves for white are very hard to find
as well and having studied this in advance gives you a huge practical advantage. If white should
deviate before this position is reached we can usually go with the same plan and the text moves I
created for white are simply the most testing. White can for instance not bring a rook to the third
rank unless Nf3 is exchanged and the bishop has moved away from f4.
Our plan here is to maneuver the knight into the game with Nc6-a7-c8-d6. This may seem slow
but since status quo is at hand, it is OK. But if white does something drastic we have to be alert.
Here are the variations:
a) 17. Re3 e5! Key move. It is possible only because the rook blocks the queens
diagonal. Now the knight springs to life.
b) 17. b4!? Rh5 18. Be2 (18. Ng3 Bg5 19. Bxg5 Qxg5) Rxh6! 19. Qxh6 Nxb4 20. cxb4
Bxe4 with good compensation for the exchange.
c) 17. Rad1 (equivalent to nothing) Na7. And you may think that 18. Re3 is dangerous
now when e5 is no longer as strong, but now we have something else. 18. Rh5 19.
Rg3 Bxe4 (this move was unavailable before) 20 Bxe4 Bd6 21. Rh3 Rxh3 22. gxh3
Qh4 with an advantage for black.
The flank attack

This attack is very sharp, and has to be handled accurately
4. Nf3 g6
5. h4!? e6
5. h4!? is certainly not a developing move and as we have seen before, if white tries to hard he
can end up worse. Not that the move does have its points, all pawn-storm business aside, it holds
the g5 square as a possible outpost. An early flank attack is not easy to face in any opening,
usually because you have to switch plans, as we do here.
Line A
6. h5?! g5
7. e5 g4
8. Nh4 f5

This is in a type-example of what we want to accomplish with this opening. White makes a
premature attack and we stop it. Our bishop grows stronger with every move and the king is safe
once you look a little closer.
Line B
9. e5 Nh6!?
I feel I should treat this line a little differently. Black can play 6. Bg7 here and also be fine. But if
you want to play in gambit style the text move is a good choice. After 6. Bg7 7. exf6?! Qxf6! 8.
Bg5 Qf7 9. Nbd2 Nc6 10. c3 h6 11. Be3 0-0-0 we have simply a good and dynamic position,
where black is at least equal. Another possible continuation is: 7. Nc3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Nc6 9. exf6
Qxf6 10. Bf4 Nge7. And now if 11. 0-0-0 then 0-0, and if 11. Ne4 then Qf8 12. Bxc7 Qxf3 13.
Nd6+ Kf8 14. gxf3 Nd5 and black is actually a little bit better.
10. exf6 Nf7

11. Bg5 h6!
12. Bxg6 hxg5
13. Nxg5 Qxf6
14. Bxf7+ Ke7
The king is safe on e7 and now both Qxg5 and Bxg2 is threatened, leaving white in a
psychologically difficult situation since he has to immediately abandon all hopes of an attack in a
position that in itself is not so easily defended. For example: 12. Qg4 Nc6 13. c3 Nd8! 14. Bh5
Qh6 and the bishop is trapped.
Line C
4. Nc3 Nc6
This is one of the fortunate moves the computer found. If 5. d5 then Nb4. White also has to worry
about Qe7 and 0-0-0. The text move is one try.
5. Bf4 a6
6. Qe2 Bb4
7. a3 Bxc3
8. bxc3 e5
9. Be3 d5

This is the way to go. Striking back in the center is the most powerful way to handle an attack on
the wing. If you have to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative so be it! If the position opens up we can
castle long and sacrifice the pawn on a6. At the end of the day, black has good chances of
stealing the initiative.
The Austrian Attack

This attack which is feared in the Pirc Defense but no problem here since our position is so
flexible. I believe playing f4 (e.g. leaving the bishop shut down) against the Unicorn Defense is
the wrong idea.
4. f4 e6
If we can blockade the light squares than his dark-squared bishop wont do us any harm.
5. Nf3 Nh6
6. 0-0 f5
Our position is solid from here on. One might think that white would jump at the chance to open
the e-file, a.i. 7. exf5 Nxf5 8. Bxf5 exf5, but the unopposed bishop on b7 is fantastic and we will
have time to castle after, 9. Re1+ Be7.
7. Nc3 Be7
8. Be3 0-0
(Diagram)

White waits too long
We are approaching the end of the article and I would love to show a master game in this
opening, but there arent any!
As far as I know 3. f6!? has never been played before. I noticed however that I feel very
confident playing this way. Even when my opponents play a line I havent studied, the same
patterns emerges and the moves play themselves from there on out. You will see that if white
doesnt crush us in the first 20 moves or so, we will have a comfortable middle-game, like when
white doesnt push the central pawns before the seventh move.
4. Nf3 g6
5. 0-0 Nh6
6. Re1 Nf7
7. Bf4 Nc6
(Diagram)
At this point we have nothing to worry about. 8. d5 runs into Nce5 with an overwhelming
blockade. In general, d5 never leads to anything other than simplifications and it makes bishop on
d3 a by-stander which can be exchanged at any time if we want to. 8. e5 is all the more
interesting. After 8. fxe5 9. dxe5 we can actually transposed to the Advance variation with 9.
e6.
Back to the diagram position; we are all set to continue our development with Bg7, 0-0 and Kh8,
keeping the pawn break e5 in our pocket. White will run out of useful moves soon and start to
attack. In fact he has to attack in order to prove that his center pawns are an asset and not just a
dynamic weakness. I will leave you with this thought; some things are best resolved in practice,
but once you reach the setup for black in the diagram you can handle anything.
Closing Remarks: The Unicorn Defense is indeed a risky choice, but against a human opponent very
viable. The problem with general opening theory of today is that its too uninspired. They may as well
have two computers playing against each other. What we need is to rediscover opening theory from a
human perspective.
I myself do not play the Unicorn Defense all the time. That would take the sting out of the surprise,
instead I vary it with the French Defense, another opening filled with unusual ideas and psychological
warfare, but really it is not about which openings you choose. The concept of winning the opening
battle comes down to something much deeper, namely your attitude towards the nature of the game. It
is not important to do the objectively best move in every position. In fact what scores best in practice
are the moves that poses most problems for your opponent and has an idea behind them which you
can understand and embrace, unlike your opponent.
For me unorthodox chess is about finding those startling moves. After we find them we just follow the
yellow brick road. It is through such adventures that I find inspiration and I encourage you to join me!

The Jerome Gambit Revisited
by Rick Kennedy
I was going over the Jerome Gambit article in UON #17 and wanted to comment on some
little ironies. Actually, a good while back I had started an article-sized response and,
unfortunately, lost it!
In the following computer versus computer game, play develops along "normal" Jerome
Gambit lines:
Colossus vs. Spike1.2

Jerome-forced Computer Chess Match, USA, 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6
(diagram)
6. Ke6 is one of many defenses to the Jerome. It was originally suggested by Alonzo
Wheeler Jerome himself, in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, in an
article titled "New Chess Opening".
7.f4
The early Jerome Gambit certainly had "coffee house" appeal. The first game I have with
7.f4, instead of Jerome's direct 7.Qf5+, was published in the May 1878 issue of the Italian
publication, Nuova Rivista degli Scacchi. I include the moves of that game at the end of
this article.
7...d6

A reasonable move, prudently giving back some material.
8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+
This move was seen in the legendary human-computer match, M. Fisher-Kirshner vs

Knight Stalker (otherwise known as Fritz1) Mission San Jose, Fremont, California 1993.
It must be "legendary" because, other than the Amateur versus Blackburne, London 1880
game, the 11 games of this match are the ones most people send to me. The human had
the white pieces and played the Jerome Gambit in each game. The computer won 8-3.
That's good or bad for the JG, depending on your perspective.
9...Kf7 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.Qxe5
Interestingly enough, up to this point I have two 2003 computer vs computer games won
by White -- Fritz5.32 - Shredder6.02 (1-0,59) and Junior7 - Shredder6.02
(1-0,37) -- but the opening was not the reason for the wins.
11...Bd6 12.0-0+ Nf6 13.Qg5
At this point, in the 1963 match, Knight Stalker three times played 13...Be6, which
allows 14.e5 and the win of a piece, with an even game or a bit of an edge for White.
(Fisher-Kirshner managed a win and a loss the two times he played 14.e5.)
13...h6!
Instead, in our modern game (featuring a much stronger program), we have a "TN" by
Spike 1.2, improving on play by its predecessor! Now White will not have time to win
the Knight on f6 and is simply lost.
14.Qh4 g5 15.Qe1 Be5
Protecting the Knight at f6 and preventing d2-d4 (with the idea of e4-e5).
16.c3 c5 17.b4?!
Positional disaster. White's game falls apart from here.
17...c4 18.Qe2 Be6 19.Na3 Qd3!? 20.Qxd3 cxd3 21.Bb2 Kg7 22.Rae1 a5
23.bxa5 Rxa5 24.Kh1 Rha8 25.Rf3 Rxa3 26.Bxa3 Rxa3 27.Rxd3 Rxa2
28.g3 Kf8 29.Rd1 Bb3 30.Re1 b5 31.h3 Bc4 32.Rf3 Rxd2 33.Kg1 Ke7
34.g4 h5 35.Ra1 hxg4 36.hxg4 Nxg4 37.Ra7+ Kd6 38.Ra6+ Kc5 39.Ra1 b4
40.Rc1 bxc3 41.Rf5 Kb4 42.Rb1+ Ka3 43.Rf2 Rxf2 0-1

The rematch between the two computer programs was no better for the Gambit, or the
gambiteer.
Spike1.2 vs. Colossus

Jerome-forced Computer Chess Match USA, 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6
7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5
Here, A.W. Jerome recommended 10.Qf3 (April 1874, Dubuque Chess Journal).
My database has seven games with the alternative move 10.Qxe5+ -- with White
planning to play the strategic concept of using pawns against the piece. Interestingly,
five of those games are human versus human contests, and White won 4 and drew one.
The other two were computer versus computer games; and Black won both of those.
What happens in the current game is that Spike cannot come up with a long-term plan,
and the tactics it chases after are easily rebuffed. "The Black King is a strong piece!"
Steinitz would say, and that puts White two pieces down.
10.Qxe5+ Kxe5 11.d3 Ke6 12.Nc3 Nf6 13.Nb5
There is nothing in this. A human would play 13.Bg5 and 14.0-0-0 and hope for the best.
Spike has no hope here.
13...Ne8 14.Rf1 c6 15.Nc3 Rf8 16.Rxf8 Bxf8
A consistent plan, which leads to a temporary lead in development for White; but really,
we are just one step closer to the end.

17.Bf4 Nf6 18.Ne2 c5 19.e5
For White, there is nothing but pain and disappointment to follow.
19...Nd5 20.d4 Be7 21.c4 Nxf4 22.Nxf4+ Kf5 23.Nh5 g6 24.Ng3+ Ke6
25.Kd2 b5 26.Ne4 bxc4 27.Kc3 Rb8 28.Rd1 Ba6 29.h4 Rf8 30.Ng5+ Bxg5
31.hxg5 Rf5 32.Rh1 Rxg5 33.Rxh7 Rg3+ 34.Kc2 Rxg2+ 35.Kc3 Bb5
36.Rh8 0-1
This gets me to wonder how Fritz10 would do playing the Jerome Gambit against
KnightStalker.
If you aren't totally disgusted with the Jerome Gambit by now, check out the following
game. After just a dozen moves Black's King is in serious trouble! White stumbles along,
though, and it is only Black's blunder at move 18 that allows for a mate in 2 moves
though white announced a mate in 4 (il blanco annunzia lo sc i 4).
Editors Note: The following game was presented without annotation and in
playing over it, it looked like Black got mopped up fairly well. In fact, the game made
me feel like playing the Jerome. But I know from having watched the 2006 Jerome
Gambit computer match, that dire positions in the gambit are often little more than
grand cases of deceptio visus [Latin for optical illusion]. And so, with the assistance
of Fritz, I was able to see the game as not so good for White, even though he won.
- gkg
D'Aumiller, A versus A.P.

Livorno 1878
1.e4 e5 2.f3 c6 3.c4 c5 4.xf7+ XABCDEFGHY

xf7-+ 5.xe5+ xe5 6.h5+ e6
7.f4 d6 8.d4 xd4 9.c3 b6 8r+lwq-+-tr(
Fritz correctly points out that 9...d3+
7zppzp-+-zpp'
nails it down 10.f1 f2 11.d5+ d7 6-vl-+-sn-+&
12.xd4 xh1 13.xg7+ e7-+
5+-mk-zpQ+-%
10.fxe5 dxe5 11.a3 f6 12.f5+ 4-+N+P+-+$
d6
3+-zP-+-+-#
But 12...f7 secures victory for Black 2PzP-+-+PzP"
13.f1 f8-+
1tR-vL-mK-+R!
13.c4+ c5?? xabcdefghy
Position after 13. c5??

Black should have played 13...e7 XABCDEFGHY
when we would likely see 14.xe5+
f7 15.xb6 axb6 16.g5-+ 8r+lwq-+-tr(
14.xe5+??
7zppzp-+-zpp'
6-vl-+-sn-+&
14.e3+ was necessary. Then, after
14...c6 15.xe5+ d6 16.d1+ e7
5+-+-wQ-+-%
17.c5+ xc5 18.c6+ bxc6 19.xc5+ 4-+-+PvL-+$
d6 20.xd6 cxd6 21.xc6 and
equality is realized. 3+PzP-+-+-#
2P+k+-+PzP"
14...xc4-+ 15.b3+ d3 16.f4??
1tR-+-mK-+R!
This mistake should hasten the end of xabcdefghy
White, better was 16.b5+ xe4
After 16. c2
17.f1
(Instead, 16. g4 should have been played)
16...c2
XABCDEFGHY
Fritz prefers the following g4 line 8r+lwqr+-+(
which has quite a bit of checking, and
appears to win for Black by force. 7zppzp-+-zpp'
16...g4 17.g5 e8 18.g3+ xe4
6-vl-+-sn-+&
19.f4+ d5+ 20.d2 e4+ 5+-+-wQ-+-%
21.xe4+ xe4 22.c4+ e5+ 23.xd8
e2+ 24.d3 xd8+ 25.c3 d4+ 4-+P+PvL-+$
26.b4 c5+ 27.a5 c3+ 28.b4 xb4+ 3mkP+-+-+-#
29.a4 d3 30.he1 d7#
2P+R+-+PzP"
17.c1+ b2 18.c4+ a3 ?? 1+-+-mK-+R!
Instead, 18...d4! and Black will win! xabcdefghy
19.d1 xe5 20.xe5+ xa2 21.xd8 Final Position with the possibility of
xd8-+ 20.c1+ b4 21.b5#
19.c2+ e8 10
Editors Note:
I cannot help but to wonder if White ever realized the constant danger he faced in the above game; or
if Black never realized he stood better. Many spectators would likely have concluded that Black was
crushed, thus giving a boost to the lively gambit.
-gkg

Gambetto Blackmar Diemer
La scelta
n.11 novembre 2005
Alla memoria di Emil Josef Diemer (1908-1990)
Variante 1.d4 b6 2.Nc3

By Correspondence Master
Giorgio Codazza
1.d4 b6 2.Nc3
XABCDEFGHY
8rsnlwqkvlntr(
7zp-zppzppzpp'
6-zp-+-+-+&
5+-+-+-+-%
4-+-zP-+-+$
3+-sN-+-+-#
2PzPP+PzPPzP"
1tR-vLQmKLsNR!
xabcdefghy
La variante
Lapertura del fianchetto di donna non una cattiva idea per il nero. Solitamente il gioco
procede abbastanza lentamente ed i due contendenti tendono a sviluppare tranquillamente
i propri pezzi. Non essendoci immediato contatto pedonale (Es. come dopo 1.d4 c5) non
ci sono possibilit dassalto immediato per il primo giocatore. Invero Bucker anni fa
aveva proposto un interessante gambetto per il bianco che partiva dallordine di mosse
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Ag5!? lasciando in presa il pedone e4 con lidea 3Bxe4 4.d5

Non si trovano per molti esempi pratici. Ho preferito per opporsi alla strategia del nero,
proporre una tranquilla sequenza di mosse di sviluppo. Lidea quella di rientrare in una
difesa Owen 1.e4 b6. Per uniformit di repertorio (vedi numeri precedenti) propongo il
seguito 1.d4 b6 2.Nc3 e dopo la logica 2Bb7 la spinta in e4.
Le ragioni della scelta

Come accennato, lo sviluppo al secondo tratto del cavallo 2.Nc3 dettato dal fatto di
mantenere una certa uniformit di repertorio alle scelte minori del nero. Se si osservano
con attenzione le proposte dei numeri precedenti, si pu notare che a 1.d4 c5 1.d4 f5 1.d4
e5 abbiamo sempre risposto con 2.Nc3. Siamo cos in grado di giocare 1.Nc3 ed avere
una variante a disposizione alle risposte del nero: 1c5 1e5 ecc 2.d4!. Torniamo
alla variante principale proposta: 1.d4 b6 2.Nc3 Ab7 3.e4 e6 4.a3!? Con il suo ultimo
tratto il bianco intende limitare lo sviluppo dellalfiere campo scuro nero (Bb4) che
una volta inchiodato il cavallo in c3 permetterebbe al secondo giocatore di aumentare la
pressione sul punto e4. 4.a3 non una perdita di tempo, ma una mossa con un fine
posizionale, che aiuta il bianco a perseguire il suo scopo: lespansione centrale mediante
laffiancamento pedonale e4-d4 ed un solido sviluppo. Il bianco si trover in vantaggio di
spazio e potr dare inizio una volta completato il dispiegamento delle forze ad azioni
concrete.
1.d4 b6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 Bb4 4.Nf3 Il nero antepone in questo caso lo sviluppo dellalfiere
in f8 al normale seguito 3...Bb7 per premere pi efficacemente sul centro, ma mettendo
in conto di rinunciare prima o poi alla coppia degli alfieri. Il bianco continua in questo
caso con la tranquilla 4.Nf3. Lultima variante presa in considerazione : 1.d4 b6 2.Nc3
e6 3.e4 g6!? 4.Bc4 Il nero imposta un doppio fianchetto sulla scia dell Ippopotamo
difesa che prevede il doppio fianchetto degli alfieri neri e lo sviluppo dei cavalli in e7-d7
ed una reazione centrale ritardata, lasciando al bianco campo libero nella fase iniziale
della partita. Consigliamo 4.Bc4 che ha dato buoni risultati nella pratica (vedi database
allegato). 4.Bc4 ha il pregio di essere contemporaneamente una buona mossa di sviluppo
e dattacco.
Il rientro
Come gi visto siamo rientrati in una difesa Owen 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3. Le varianti
presentate non hanno la pretesa di essere le migliori risposte a favore del bianco. Si
voluto semplicemente proporre alcuni schemi di gioco orientativi contro una difesa
raramente giocata. Proprio per questo, molto spesso, il primo giocatore gioca ad
orecchio semplicemente buttando li i pezzi senza avere preparato qualcosa
dadeguato, giustificando in questo modo la strategia del nero. Pu essere utile, avere una
guida di riferimento, anche contro le scelte minori del secondo giocatore.

1.d4 b6 2.Nc3 Ab7
XABCDEFGHY
8rsn-wqkvlntr(
7zplzppzppzpp'
6-zp-+-+-+&
5+-+-+-+-%
4-+-zP-+-+$
3+-sN-+-+-#
2PzPP+PzPPzP"
1tR-vLQmKLsNR!
xabcdefghy
Le partite
1.d4 b6 2.Nc3 Ab7 3.e4 e6 4.a3
XABCDEFGHY
8rsn-wqkvlntr(
7zplzpp+pzpp'
6-zp-+p+-+&
5+-+-+-+-%
4-+-zPP+-+$
3zP-sN-+-+-#
2-zPP+-zPPzP"
1tR-vLQmKLsNR!
xabcdefghy

Jurkovic,H (2430) Vlaic,B (2265) [B00]
CRO Cup Rabac (1), 2004
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.a3 d5 5.exd5 exd5 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Ne5 [7.Bd3 Bd6] 7...Be7 8.Bb5+
c6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 c5 [10...Qc7 11.Re1] 11.Be3 [11.Re1 a6] 11...Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Qf3
Re8 14.Rfe1 c4 [14...Qd7!?] 15.Bxc4! Qd7 [15...dxc4 16.Qxc6] 16.Bd3 Ne4 17.Ne2 f5
[17...Bd6 18.Bf4] 18.Qh3 g6 19.f3 [19.Rac1 Bb5+] 19...Nd6 20.Bf4 Bf6 21.c3 Bb5 22.Bxd6
Bxd3 23.Be5 [23.Nf4!?] 23...Bxe5 24.dxe5 Rxe5 25.Nd4 Rxe1+ 26.Rxe1 Re8 27.Qh4 Ba6
28.h3 Kg7 29.Qg3 Rxe1+ [29...f4 30.Qh4] 30.Qxe1 Kf6 [30...Qd6 31.Qe8 f4 32.Qa4+] 31.g4
[31.f4!? Kf7 32.Qe5+] 31...fxg4 32.hxg4 Qd6 33.Kg2 Bc8? [33...Qe5 34.Qd2 g5]
34.Qe8+ Qd7?? [34...Bd7 35.Qh8+ Ke7 36.Qxh7+ Ke8+] 35.Qf8+ Kg5 36.Kg3 [36.Kg3 Qxg4+
37.fxg4 Bxg4 38.Qe7+ Kh6 39.Kxg4 a6 40.Qf8#] 1-0
Nunez Gonzalez,M Garcia Lechugo,F [B00]

Gibtelecom Masters (5), 2006
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.a3 g6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Bd3 Bg7 7.Be3 d6 8.Qd2 Nd7 9.0-0-0 c5
[9...Ngf6 10.Rhe1] 10.Be2 [10.d5!? b5 11.dxe6 fxe6 12.Be2+] 10...cxd4 11.Nxd4 Qc7??
[11...Rc8 12.f3] 12.f3 [12.Ndb5 axb5 13.Nxb5+] 12...Rd8 13.g4 [13.h4 h6] 13...h6 14.h4
Ne7 [14...Nc5 15.Kb1] 15.h5 g5 16.f4 [16.Ndb5!? axb5 17.Nxb5] 16...f6?? [16...gxf4
17.Bxf4 Bxd4 18.Qxd4 e5] 17.Nxe6+ [17.Nxe6 Qc6 18.fxg5 hxg5 19.Nxg7+ Kf7 20.h6+] 1-0
Nurkic,S (2375) Lovric,B (2365) [B00]

Hotel Opatija GM (9), 2003
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.a3 Nf6 5.Bd3 c5 6.dxc5 bxc5 7.Nf3 c4 8.Bxc4 Nxe4 9.Nxe4 Bxe4
10.Bd3 Qa5+ 11.b4 Bxf3 12.bxa5 [12.Qxf3 Qe5+ 13.Kd1 Nc6=] 12...Bxd1 13.Kxd1 Nc6 14.Be3
Nxa5 15.Ke2 Bd6 16.Be4 Rc8 17.Bxa7 Bc5 18.Bxc5 Rxc5 19.Bd3 Ke7 20.Rhb1 Rhc8 21.a4
[21.Bxh7? g6 22.a4 Re5+ 23.Kd3 Rd5+ 24.Ke4 Rc4+ 25.Kf3 Rc3+ 26.Kg4 Rh5 27.Bxg6 fxg6-+]
21...Nc6 22.Kd2 [22.Bxh7? g6 23.h3 Rxc2+ 24.Kf1 Rh8 25.Bxg6 fxg6-+] 22...Ne5 23.Rb4
[23.Bxh7? g6 24.c3 Nc4+ 25.Kd3 Rd5+ 26.Ke2 Rh5-+] 23...Rd5 24.Ke2 [24.Rb5 Rxb5 25.axb5
Rb8=] 24...Nxd3 25.cxd3 Rc2+ 26.Ke3 Re5+ 27.Re4 Rf5 28.f4 Ra5 [28...Rxg2 29.a5 Rxh2
30.a6 Rh3+ 31.Kd2+] 29.Kf3 Rb2 30.Rc4 Rb3 31.Ke3 d5 32.Rc7+ Kf6 33.Rd7 Rc5 [33...Rb8
34.g4] 34.Kd4 [34.a5!? Rcc3 35.a6 Rxd3+ 36.Ke2 Re3+ 37.Kf2=] 34...Rcc3 35.a5
[35.Rd1!?] 35...Rxd3+-+ 36.Kc5 Rdc3+ 37.Kd6 d4 [37...Ra3 38.Rxa3 Rxa3 39.Ra7] 38.Rc7
[38.f5!? Ra3 39.Rxa3 Rxa3 40.fxe6 fxe6 41.Kc6] 38...Ra3-+ [38...Ra3 39.Rxa3 Rxa3-+] 0-1
Ivanisevic,I (2530) Bauer,C (2620) [B00]

Top (1), 2004
1.d4 b6 2.e4 Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.a3 Nf6 5.Bd3 c5 6.Nf3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 d6 8.b3 Nbd7 9.Bb2 Be7
10.Qe2 a6 11.f4 Qc7 12.0-0-0 Nc5 13.Kb1 0-0-0 14.Rhf1 Kb8 [14...Nxd3? 15.cxd3 (15.Rxd3?!
Kb8; 15.Qxd3?! Kb8=) 15...Kb8 16.Rc1+] 15.a4 [15.b4 Nxd3 16.cxd3 Rc8] 15...h5 [15...Qd7
16.g4=] 16.g3 [16.b4 Nxd3 17.cxd3 d5=] 16...Rhf8 [16...h4 17.b4 Nxd3 18.cxd3] 17.h3 [17.b4
Nxd3 18.cxd3 d5] 17...g6 [17...h4 18.g4=] 18.Nf3 Rc8 [18...d5 19.exd5 exd5 20.Rfe1] 19.e5
[19.b4 Nxd3 20.cxd3 d5=] 19...Nfd7 [19...dxe5!? 20.fxe5 Nxd3 21.Qxd3 Rfd8] 20.exd6= Bxd6
21.Bc4 Be7 [21...Nf6=] 22.Nd4?? [22.b4!?] 22...Bf6 [22...h4 23.g4 Bf6] 23.Qe3? [23.b4
Nxa4 24.Nxa4 Qxc4 25.Nc5 Rxc5 26.bxc5=] 23...Rfd8?? [23...Bg2-+] 24.Ndb5! axb5
25.Nxb5 Qc6 26.Bxf6 Nxf6 27.Qe5+ Ka8 28.Rxd8 Rxd8 29.Qxf6 Qd7 30.Qe5 Ne4 [30...Bg2
31.Re1 Bxh3] 31.Kb2 Bc6 32.Ra1 Kb7 33.Nc3 [33.Rd1! Qc8 34.Rd4 Rxd4 35.Qxd4
(35.Nxd4 f6 36.Qxe6 Qxe6 37.Bxe6 Nxg3+) 35...Bxb5 36.Bxb5+ (36.axb5?! Nxg3 37.Bd3
Qc5=; 36.Qxe4+?! Bc6 37.Qd4 Qd7 38.Qxd7+ Bxd7+) ] 33...Nxc3 34.Qxc3 Qd4 [34...h4
35.gxh4 Qd4 36.Qxd4 Rxd4 37.Rf1] 35.Re1 h4 36.g4 [36.Qxd4 Rxd4 37.Kc3 Rd8] 36...Qxf4
37.Rf1 Qc7 38.Qf6 Rd7 39.Qxh4 Qe5+ 40.Kb1 Be4 41.Qf2 [41.Qe1 f6] 41...Qc3 42.Qe2 f5
43.Ba6+?? [43.Bxe6 Rd2 44.Qc4 Rxc2 45.Qxc3 Rxc3+ 46.Kb2 Rc2+ 47.Ka3] 43...Ka7-+
44.Qc4 Bxc2+ 45.Ka2 Bxb3+! 46.Qxb3 Rd2+ 47.Ka3 Qc5+ 48.Qb4 Kxa6 [48...Ra2+! 49.Kxa2
Qxb4-+] 49.Qxc5 bxc5 50.gxf5 gxf5 [50...exf5!? 51.Rg1 Rd6] 51.Re1 Rd3+ 52.Kb2 Ka5
53.Rxe6 f4 54.Rf6 f3 55.Kc2 c4 56.h4 Kb4 57.h5 Ra3 58.Rb6+ Kc5 59.Rf6 f2 60.Kb2 Rb3+
61.Ka2 Kb4 62.Rxf2 Rh3 [62...Kxa4 63.Rh2] 63.Kb2 Rxh5 64.Rf8 Rh2+ 65.Kb1 Kb3 66.Rb8+

Kc3 67.a5 Rh1+ 68.Ka2 Rh5 69.Ra8 Kc2 70.Ka3 c3 71.a6 Ra5+ 72.Kb4 Ra1 73.Kb5 Kb2
74.Rc8 c2 75.Kb6 Rxa6+ 76.Kxa6 -
Ehlvest,J (2595) Blatny,P (2450) [B00]

New York Masters (4), 2004
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.a3 Nf6 5.Bd3 d5 6.e5 Nfd7 7.Nf3 Be7 8.Ne2 c5 9.c3 Ba6 10.Nf4
Qc8 11.0-0 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 Qa6 13.Qd1 Nc6 14.Be3 Na5 [14...Qb5!?=] 15.Nd2 g6 [15...Rc8
16.Qg4 g6 17.b4] 16.b4 Nc4 17.Qe2 cxd4 18.Bxd4 Rc8 19.Nxd5 [19.a4!?] 19...exd5= 20.e6
Nf6 21.exf7+ Kf8?? [21...Kxf7 22.Rfe1 Rhe8 23.Qe6+ Kg7 24.Nxc4 Qxc4+] 22.Qe6+ Nh5
[22...Nd6 23.Bxf6 Bxf6 24.Qxf6 (24.Qxd6+?! Kg7+) 24...Nxf7 25.Rfe1+] 23.Rfe1 Qb7 [23...Rc7
24.Bxh8 Nf4 25.Qg4+] 24.Nxc4 dxc4 25.Bxh8 Nf4 [25...Rd8 26.Qxc4 b5+] 26.Bg7+ [26.Qg4
Qxg2+ 27.Qxg2 Nxg2 28.Kxg2 Kxf7 29.Bd4+] 26...Kxg7 27.Qe5+ Bf6 28.Qxf4 Bxc3 [28...Qxf7
29.Qf3 a5+] 29.Re8 Qxf7 30.Qxf7+ Kxf7 31.Rxc8 Bxa1 32.Rxc4 Be5 33.b5 Ke6 34.Kf1
[34.Rc8 Bb2 35.a4 Bd4+] 34...Kd5 [34...Bd6 35.Ra4 Bb8 36.Re4+ Kd7 37.g3+] 35.Rc8 Bd6
[35...h5 36.a4 g5 37.Rg8+] 36.a4 Bc5 [36...Be5 37.Ra8+] 37.Rc7 Kc4 [37...h6 38.Rxa7 Kc4
39.h4+] 38.Rxa7 [38.Rxh7 g5+] 38...Kb4 39.Ke2 h5 [39...Kb3 40.h4+] 40.f4 [40.h4 Bd4
41.f4 Bc5+] 40...Bd6 [40...h4 41.Kd3 h3 42.gxh3+] 41.Kf3 Bc5 42.g3 [42.g3 Bg1 43.h4+;
42.h4!? Bg1+] 1-0
1.d4 b6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 Ab4!? 4.Nf3
XABCDEFGHY
8rsnlwqk+ntr(
7zp-zpp+pzpp'
6-zp-+p+-+&
5+-+-+-+-%
4-vl-zPP+-+$
3+-sN-+N+-#
2PzPP+-zPPzP"
1tR-vLQmKL+R!
xabcdefghy
Gutdeutsch,O Erdelyi,T [B00]

ch Kecskemet ch, 1991
1.e4 b6 2.Nc3 e6 3.d4 Bb4 4.Nf3 Bb7 5.Bd3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 d6 7.0-0 Nd7 8.a4 a5 9.c4 e5 10.c3
Qe7 [10...Ngf6 11.Qc2] 11.Rb1 h6 12.Ba3 g5? [12...Ngf6 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 15.f4]
13.c5 [13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Qxe5 15.Rb5+] 13...dxc5 14.dxc5 Nxc5 15.Bxc5 -

Borsuk,A (2230) Filipovic,I (2010) [B00]
JUGchT Cup (Women) (4), 1994
1.d4 b6 2.e4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 Bb7 5.Bd3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nf6 7.Qe2 d5 8.e5 Ne4 9.Bb2 c5
10.Nd2 [10.0-0!?] 10...Nxd2= 11.Qxd2 f6 [11...Ba6 12.0-0=] 12.Qe2 Qe7 13.exf6 Qxf6 14.Qe3
[14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qh6 Nc6] 14...Nd7 [14...0-0!?=] 15.0-0 c4 16.Be2 0-0 [16...Qf5 17.Ba3 Nf6
18.Qg3] 17.Bg4 Rfe8 18.Rae1 Nf8 19.Ba3 Bc8 20.f4 Bd7 21.Qh3 Ng6 22.g3 a5 23.Qg2 Bc6
24.h4 Nh8 [24...Bd7 25.h5 Ne7 26.Bd6] 25.Qh3 [25.Re2 Nf7 26.Rfe1 Nd8+] 25...Bd7 26.Re2
b5 27.Bc5 b4 [27...Nf7 28.Rfe1 Nh6 29.Bxe6+ Rxe6 30.Rxe6] 28.Rfe1+ Ra6? [28...Qf7+]
29.f5 Bb5?? [29...exf5 30.Rxe8+] 30.fxe6 [30.Rxe6 Raxe6 31.fxe6 Ng6+] 30...Ng6 [30...bxc3
31.e7 Qh6 32.Be6+ Nf7 33.Bxf7+ Kxf7 34.Qf5+ Rf6 35.Qxd5+ Kg6 36.Bd6+] 31.e7 b3
[31...Nxe7 32.Rxe7 Rd8 33.R1e6 Rxe6 34.Bxe6+ Kh8 35.Rf7+] 32.Be6+ [32.Rf2 Qc6 33.Be6+
Kh8+] 32...Rxe6 33.Qxe6+ Qxe6 34.Rxe6 bxa2 35.Ra1 Kf7 36.Rb6 Bd7 37.Rxa2 Nxe7
38.Rb7 Bf5 39.Rxa5 Kf6 40.Rxe7 Rxe7 41.Bxe7+ Kxe7 42.Rxd5 Bxc2 43.Kf2 Ke6 44.Rc5 Bd3
45.Ke3 g6 [45...Kd6 46.Rg5 g6 47.Kf4+] 46.Kf4 h6 [46...Kd7 47.Kg5 h5 48.Rd5+ Kc6 49.Ra5+
] 47.g4 Kf6 48.Rc8 [48.Rc6+ Ke7 49.h5 gxh5 50.gxh5 Be2 51.Rxh6 Bd1+] 48...Be2 [48...g5+
49.Kg3+] 49.Re8 [49.Rc6+!? Kg7+] 49...Bd1 50.Rg8 [50.Rg8 Be2 51.Rf8+ Ke7 52.Rh8 g5+
53.hxg5 hxg5+ 54.Kxg5+; 50.Rf8+!? Kg7 51.Rc8 Be2+] 1-0
Sislian,H Richert,T [B00]

LEM SWH Meisterklass, 1994
1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 d5 5.e5 Ba6 6.Bxa6 Nxa6 7.0-0 h6 [7...Bxc3!? 8.bxc3 Qd7]
8.Qd3 Qc8 9.Ne2 Bf8 10.a3 Nb8 11.Nf4 [11.b3 a5] 11...Ne7 12.Bd2 Nd7 13.Rac1 c5 14.c4
Qa6 15.b4 cxd4 [15...dxc4 16.Qe4 (16.Qxc4 Qxc4 17.Rxc4 g5=) 16...Rd8 17.dxc5 bxc5
18.Rxc4 (18.Qxc4?! Qxc4 19.Rxc4 Nc6=) ] 16.Qxd4 [16.Rfe1 Rc8 17.cxd5 Qxd3 18.Rxc8+
Nxc8 19.Nxd3 exd5 20.Nxd4 a6+] 16...Nf5 17.Qd3 g5? [17...dxc4 18.Rxc4 Rd8] 18.Nxd5+
[18.cxd5?! Qxd3 19.Nxd3 exd5] 18...Qxc4?? [18...0-0-0 19.Rfe1 g4+] 1-0
Resano Lopez,F (2120) Serrano Martinez,A [B00]

Erandio op (7), 2003
1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 d6 [4...Bb7 5.Bd3] 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.a4
a5 9.0-0 c5 [9...0-0 10.c4] 10.e5 Ng6 [10...dxe5 11.dxc5 Nd7 12.Bb5] 11.exd6 Qxd6 12.dxc5
Qxc5 [12...bxc5 13.Bb5+ Ke7 14.Qe2+] 13.Ba3 [13.Bb5+ Bc6 14.Ba3+] 13...Qc7??
[13...Qd5] 14.Nd4+ Bc6 [14...Qd7 15.Rb1 Nc6 16.Rxb6 Nxd4 17.cxd4+] 15.Bb5 [15.Nxc6?!
Nxc6 16.Bb5 Rc8+] 15...Ne7 16.Bxc6+ [16.Re1 0-0 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.Nxc6 Nxc6 19.Bxc6+]
16...Nexc6?? [16...Nbxc6 17.Nb5 Qd7 18.Nd6+ Kf8+] 17.Nb5 Qd7 18.Qf3 f6 [18...Nb4 19.Qxa8
0-0 20.Rfd1+] 19.Rfd1 [19.Rfd1 Qf7 20.Nd6+ Ke7 21.Nxf7+ Kxf7 22.Rab1+] 1-0

1.d4 b6 2.Nc3 Bb7 3.e4 g6!? 4.Ac4
XABCDEFGHY
8rsn-wqkvlntr(
7zplzppzpp+p'
6-zp-+-+p+&
5+-+-+-+-%
4-+LzPP+-+$
3+-sN-+-+-#
2PzPP+-zPPzP"
1tR-vLQmK-sNR!
xabcdefghy
Assarsjo,I Simpson,S [B00]

CL5-1999.14 IECC email, 1999
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bg5 Ne7 7.0-0 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 d5 [9...0-0
10.d5] 10.Bb5+ [10.exd5 exd5 11.Bd3 a6+] 10...Nd7 [10...Nbc6 11.exd5 exd5 12.Bxc6+ Bxc6
13.Re1] 11.Re1 [11.exd5!? exd5 12.Re1+] 11...0-0 12.Bxd7 [12.exd5!? Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Bxd5
14.Qd3] 12...Qxd7 13.Ne5 Bxe5 14.Bxe5 [14.dxe5 d4] 14...dxe4 [14...f6 15.Bg3 dxe4]
15.Nxe4?? [15.Bf6] 15...Bxe4 16.Rxe4 Qd5?? [16...f6 17.Qh5 Kh7] 17.Re2 [17.Qe2 Ng6
18.c4 Qd8+] 17...Nc6 [17...c6!?] 18.c3+ Nxe5 19.Rxe5 [19.dxe5?! Qxd1+ 20.Rxd1 Rad8]
19...Qd6 20.Qh5 Kg7 [20...Kh7 21.Rae1 Qd8 22.h4 gxh4 23.Qf3+] 21.Rae1 Rfe8 [21...Rh8
22.f4 Rag8 23.fxg5 hxg5 24.Qxg5+ Kf8 25.Qf6+] 22.Qg4 [22.Qg4 Qd7 23.f4+; 22.f4 gxf4
23.Qg4+ Kh7 24.Qxf4 Rf8+] 1-0
Viczmandi,F Gonczi,J [B00]

ch Sarospatak ch, 1993
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Ng5 0-0 7.0-0 e6 8.e5 Nh5 9.Be2?? [9.g4
Bh6 10.Nce4 (10.gxh5?! Bxg5 11.Qg4 Bxc1 12.Raxc1 f5) 10...Bxe4 11.Nxe4 Bxc1 12.Rxc1+]
9...f6= 10.Bf3 c6 [10...Nc6 11.exf6 Qxf6 12.Be3=] 11.exf6 [11.Nce4 fxg5 12.Bxh5 gxh5 13.Bxg5
Qc7 14.Qxh5 d5] 11...Qxf6 [11...Nxf6 12.Nce4] 12.Be3 [12.Bxh5 gxh5 13.Qxh5 Qg6 14.Qxg6
hxg6] 12...h6? [12...Nf4 13.Nge4 Qe7=] 13.Nge4+ Qh4 14.g3 [14.Nd6 Ba6 15.Re1+]
14...Qh3?? [14...Qe7 15.Bxh5 gxh5] 15.Bg4+ Qxf1+ 16.Qxf1 [16.Qxf1 Nf6 17.Nxf6+ Rxf6
18.Ne4+] 1-0

Jose Fernandez Mndez Jose R. Glez Tasis [B00]
Primera B (6), 1998
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bc4 e6 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.0-0 Ne7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 d5 9.Bd3 [9.exd5
exd5 10.Bd3 Ba6] 9...dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nf5 11.c3 Nxe3 12.fxe3 Nc6 13.Qf2 Ne7 14.Ng3 [14.Rad1
f5 15.Neg5 Qd6] 14...Qd6 15.Rad1 Rad8 16.e4 f5 17.e5 Qd7 18.Qe2 [18.Rfe1 a5] 18...Qc8
19.Ng5 c5 20.Bc4 Nd5 21.h4 [21.Rc1 Qd7=] 21...h6 [21...f4!? 22.N3e4 h6] 22.Nh3= cxd4
23.cxd4 Kh7 [23...Rf7=] 24.Kh2?? [24.Rc1 Qd7] 24...Qc7?? [24...f4 25.Nh5 gxh5 26.Bxd5
exd5 (26...Rxd5?! 27.Nxf4 Rd7 28.Qd3+ Kg8 29.Qg3) 27.Rxf4 Rxf4 28.Nxf4 Rf8-+] 25.Kh1 Qe7
26.Bxd5? [26.h5!? g5 27.Kg1] 26...Bxd5 [26...exd5? 27.h5 Qe8 28.Nf4+] 27.Rf4 [27.h5 g5
28.Kg1 Bxa2] 27...Bxa2 28.Ra1 Bd5 29.Qa6?? [29.Kg1!?-+] 29...Rd7 [29...g5 30.hxg5 hxg5-
+] 30.Ne2 Rc7 [30...Rfd8 31.Kg1-+] 31.Nc3 [31.Qd3 Qb4 32.Rb1 Ba2-+] 31...Bb7 [31...Bc4!?
32.Qa3-+] 32.Qe2 Rd8 33.Nb5 Rcd7 34.Nd6? [34.Rxa7 Bxg2+! 35.Kxg2 Rxa7 36.Nxa7 Qxa7]
34...Bd5 [34...Rxd6 35.exd6 Rxd6 36.h5-+] 35.Kh2 [35.Qb5 Bf8-+] 35...Bf8 [35...a5 36.Nb5-+]
36.Qf2? [36.Nb5-+] 36...Qg7 37.Nb5 Bc4 [37...Bc6 38.Qe2 Bxb5 39.Qxb5-+] 38.Nc3?
[38.Na3 Bd3 39.Qe3-+] 38...Rxd4 [38...g5 39.hxg5 hxg5 40.Rf3 Rxd4 41.b3-+] 39.Re1??
[39.Rxd4 Bc5 40.Rxd8 Bxf2 41.Nxf2 Qxe5+ 42.Kg1] 39...Rd2-+ 40.Qf3 R8d3 41.Qc6 Rxc3
[41...b5 42.Rxc4 bxc4 43.Qxc4 Qe7-+] 42.bxc3 [42.Rxc4 Rxc4 43.Qxc4-+] 42...Bd5 43.Qe8
Rxg2+ 44.Kh1 Re2+ 45.Kg1 Rxe1+ 46.Kf2 [46.Kh2 Rh1+ 47.Kg3 Qxe5 48.Qd7+ Kh8 49.Qxd5
exd5 50.Kg2 Rxh3 51.Kxh3 Qxf4 52.Kg2 Qd2+ 53.Kf3 Bc5 54.Kg3 Qf2+ 55.Kh3 Qf1+ 56.Kg3
Bd6#] 46...Qxe5 47.Qd7+ Bg7 [47...Bg7 48.Qxd5 exd5 49.c4 Qe3+ 50.Kg2 Re2+ 51.Rf2 Qe4+
52.Kg1 Re1+ 53.Rf1 Qg4+ 54.Kh2 Be5+ 55.Nf4 Rxf1 56.cxd5 Bxf4#] 0-1
NB: Tutte le partite sono state analizzate da Fritz 9
Nel prossimo numero : 1.d4 g6 2.h4!?
XABCDEFGHY
8rsnlwqkvlntr(
7zppzppzpp+p'
6-+-+-+p+&
5+-+-+-+-%
4-+-zP-+-zP$
3+-+-+-+-#
2PzPP+PzPP+"
1tRNvLQmKLsNR!
xabcdefghy
-- End --

DUTCH DEFENSE
Snchaud Gambit
1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4!? f5, 3.g4! [A 80]
by Dany Snchaud
dsenechaud@free.fr
Aprs 1.d4, 1e6 se veut tre un coup prophylactique laissant le

choix entre 2d5, 2b6/Nf6, et 2f5. En pratique, il savre
que le joueur en second envisage trs souvent la dfense
hollandaise mais souhaite, par le coup malin du texte (e6), viter
les variantes de gambit direct : 1.d4 f5, 2.e4!? (Staunton) et 1.d4
f5, 2.g4!? (Krecjik).
Aprs 1.d4 e6 maintenant, le coup 2.Bf4 instaure son tour une

dualit. En quelque sorte il souffle le chaud et le froid : soit on
obtient un jeu calme et positionnel de dbut du pion-Dame, avec
2d5 /...b6 /Nf6, (et les Blancs doivent tre prcis s'ils ne
veulent pas se voir galiser rapidement), soit on continue dans
lesprit de louverture hollandaise et aprs 2f5, 3.g4 cette variante base de 2.Bf4 vient
sintercaler entre le direct mais risqu 1.d4 f5, 2.g4 et lindirect mais plus sr 1.d4 f5,
2.h3 Nf6, 3.g4.
La question pose est alors la suivante : sur cette ligne de gambit diffr, la prsence du
Fou en f4 (plutt quen position forte en g5) reprsentera-t-elle un avantage par rapport
la prsence pas forcment enviable du pion noir en e6 ?
Snchaud D. Piat S., Clermont Ferrand, 1996
1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4 f5, 3.g4 fxg4, 4.e4 (4.h3!? g3, 5.Bxg3) 4...b6!? 5.Qxg4 Nf6, 6.Qg2!
(6.Qe2) 6...Bb7, 7.Nd2 Nc6, 8.c3 Ne7, 9.Bd3 Ng6, 10.Be3 e5, 11.Ngf3 Qe7, 12.dxe5
Nxe5, 13.Nxe5 Qxe5, 14.0-0-0 0-0-0, 15.Rhe1! d5, 16.f4 Qe6, 17.f5 Qe7, 18.e5 d4,
19.Ba6!! Nd5 (19Bxa6, 20.Qa8+ Kd7, 21.e6+ Kd8, 22.Qc6+ Nd7, 23.exd7+, +-)
20.Bxb7+ Kxb7, 21.Bg5 Qd7, 22.c4 Qe7, 23.Bxe7 Qxe7, 24.cxd5 Qc5+, 25.Kb1 Qxd5,
26.Qe4 (26.Qg3) 26Rhf8, 27.Qd3 c5, 28.b3 Rde8, 29.Nc4 Kc7, 30.Qg3 Re7, 31.f6,
1-0.

Snchaud D. Flament A., La Rochelle, 1995
1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4 f5, 3.g4 fxg4, 4.e4 Nf6!? 5.Bg2 Be7, 6.e5 (6.c4!) 6...Nd5, 7.Qxg4 Nxf4,
8.Qxf4 Bg5, 9.Qf3 Nc6, 10.Ne2 Nb4! [ 10Qe7, 11.h4 (11.c3 b6! 12.h4 Bh6, 13.Qh5+
Qf7, 14.Qxf7+ Kxf7, 15.d5!? exd5, 16.Bxd5+ Ke7, 17.Bxc6 (17.f4!?) 17dxc6,
18.Rg1!? Ke6, 19.f4 Rg8, 20.Nd2 Rf8, 21.Nf3 Bxf4, 22.Rxg7 Bxe5, 23.Nxe5 Kxe5,
24.Rxh7 Bh3, 25.0-0-0) 11Bh6, 12.c4, and Qc3. ]
11.Na3 Qe7, 12.h4 Bh6, 13.c3 Nd5! 14.Nc2 Rf8, 15.Qg4 Nf4 =
***
Entre la mega-database-2004, la mega-correspondance-2002 et tous les

T.W.I.C., on trouve 237 parties joues avec 1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4, dont seulement 2 avec
1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4 f5, 3.g4. Les voici :
Lukasiewicz G. (2395) Schoebel W. (2255), Allemagne, 1997
1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4 f5, 3.g4 Nf6, 4.gxf5 exf5, 5.Qd3 d5, 6.Nc3 c6, 7.0-0-0 Be6, 8.Nh3 Nbd7,
9.f3 Bb4, 10.Ng5 Qe7, 11.Bh3 (11.Bg2) 11g6, 12.Nxe6 Qxe6, 13.e4 dxe4, 14.fxe4
Nxe4, 15.Nxe4 Qxe4, 16.Qxe4+ fxe4, 17.c3 Be7, 18.Rde1 Nf6, 19.Bh6 Bf8, 20.Bg5
Bg7, 21.Be6 Rf8, 22.Re2 h6, 23.Bxf6 Rxf6, 24.Rxe4 Kf8, 25.Rhe1 Rf2, 26.h3 Rd8,
27.Rg1 g5, 28.Rge1 h5, 29.Bc4 Bf6, 30.Be2 h4, 31.Bh5 Kg7, 32.Re8 Rxe8, 33.Rxe8 a5,
34.Rb8 Kh6, 35.Bg4 Rg2, 36.Re8 Kg7, 37.a3 b5, 38.Rc8 b4, 39.axb4 axb4, 40.Rc7+
Kg6, 41.Bf3 Rg1+, 42.Kc2 Kf5, 43.Rxc6 Be7, 44.Rc7 Bd6, 45.Rf7+ Ke6, 46.Ra7 bxc3,
47.bxc3 Kf5, 48.Bb7 Kf4, 49.Bc8 Ke3, 50.Ra6 Rg2+, 51.Kb3 Bf4, 52.Bf5 Rg3, 53.Ra2
Bc7, 54.Kc4 Rf3, 55.Bg4 Rf1, 56.Re2+ Kf4, 1-0.
Rithnovszky A. (2160) Bagoly J., Hongrie, 1998
1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4 f5, 3.g4 fxg4, 4.e4 d6, 5.Nc3 (5.Qxg4! avec lide Qg2) 5Nc6, 6.Bg2
e5, 7.dxe5 dxe5, 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8, 9.0-0-0+ Bd6, 10.Be3 Nf6, 11.h3 Ke7, 12.hxg4 Bxg4,
13.f3 Be6, 14.Nh3 h6, 15.Nf2 Rad8, 16.a3 Rhf8, 17.Nd3 Nd7, 18.Rdf1 Nb6, 19.Kb1
Nc4, 20.Bc1 a6, 21.Bh3 Nd4, 22.Rfg1 Rf7, 23.Bxe6 Kxe6, 24.Rg6+ Kd7, 25.f4 exf4,
26.b3 Ne5, 27.Rxd6+ cxd6, 28.Nxf4 Rdf8, 29.Ncd5 Ne6, 30.Nb6+ Kc6, 31.Nxe6 Kxb6,
32.Nxf8 Rxf8, 33.Be3+ Kc6, 34.Bd4 Rf4, 35.Rh5 Rxe4, 36.Bc3 Kd5, 37.Kb2 Ke6,
38.a4 d5, 39.Bd2 Re2, 40.Bxh6 gxh6, 41.Rxh6+ Kd7, 42.Kc3 Nc6, 43.Kd3 Rg2,
44.Rh7+ Kc8, 45.c3 Rg3+, 46.Kd2 d4, 47.cxd4 Nxd4, 48.Rh8+ Kc7, 49.Rh7+ Kc6,
50.b4 Rb3, 51.Rh6+ Kc7, 52.Rh7+ Kb8, 53.Rd7 Rxb4, 54.Kc3 Rxa4, 0-1.
***

Les autres parties se rpartissent ainsi : 1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4
a) 2...f5, 52 Parties ;
b) 2...c5, 35 Parties ;
c) 2...b6, 12 Parties ;
d) 2...Nf6, 57 Parties ;
e) 2...d5, 65 Parties ;
f) 2...Ne7, 2 Parties ;
g) 2...Nc6, 4 Parties.
Voici quelques parties de joueurs plus de 2200 points Elo sur ces variantes annexes :
a) 2...f5
Bonner, G. (2250) - Knox V. W. (2350), Ayr, 1978

[ECO "A40"]
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 f5, 3. Nd2 Nf6, 4. e3 Be7, 5. Bd3 O-O, 6. Qe2 Nc6, 7. c3 d6, 8. Ngf3
Bd7, 9. h3 Qe8, 10. O-O-O Bd8, 11. e4 fxe4, 12. Nxe4 Nd5, 13. Bd2 Nce7, 14. g3 h6,
15.Nh2 Nf5, 16. Rhg1 a6, 17. g4 Nh4, 18. g5 hxg5, 19. Nxg5 Nf4, 20. Bxf4 Rxf4, 21.
Rde1 Bxg5, 22. Rxg5 Qf7, 23. Reg1 Rf8, 24. Ng4 Kh8, 25. Ne5, 1-0.
Frometa, Z. (2215) - Teran Alvarez I. (2400), Capablanca Mem. Mixto, Varadero,

2000
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 f5, 3. e3!? (3. e4? fxe4, 4. Qh5+ g6, 5. Qe5 Nf6, 6. Bg5 Bg7, 7. Nc3 Nc6,
8. Qc5 d6, 9. Qa3 h6, 10. Be3 O-O ; ou : 6. Qxc7 Qxc7, 7. Bxc7 Nc6, 8. Be5 Nxe5, 9.
dxe5 Ng4, 10. Nd2 e3) 3Nf6, 4. Bd3 (4. Nf3 d5, 5. c4 c6, 6. Nc3 Be7, 7. Be2 Nbd7,
8.Ne5 !?) 4Be7, 5. Nd2 O-O, 6. h3 d6, 7. c3 Kh8, 8. Qc2 Nc6, 9. Ngf3 Qe8, 10. O-O-O
Bd8, 11. Bh2 d5, 12. Ne5 Nxe5, 13. Bxe5 Nd7, 14. Nf3 Nxe5, 15. Nxe5 Bf6, 16. g4
Bxe5, 17. dxe5 c5, 18. Qe2 f4, 19. Bc2 Bd7, 20. e4 Bb5, 21. Qf3 Bc6, 22. exd5 Bxd5, 23.
Qd3 g6, 24. Rhe1 b5, 25. Bb1 c4, 26. Qd4 f3, 27. Qc5 Rf4, 28.Rd4 Qf7, 29. Be4 Rd8, 30.
Qxb5 Qc7, 31. Bxd5 Rxd4, 32. cxd4 Rxd5, 33. Qe8+ Kg7, 34.Qxe6 Rxd4, 35. Qf6+ Kh6,
36. Qxf3 Qa5, 37. Qe3+ Kg7, 38. Qxd4 Qxe1+, 39. Kc2 Qe2+, 40. Kc3 Qf3+, 41. Kxc4
Qc6+, 42. Kb4 Qb7+, 43. Kc3 Qc6+, 44. Kd2 g5, 45. e6+ Kg6, 46.Qd7, 1-0.

Milanowski J. (2080) - Kornasiewicz J. (2250), Poland, 1995
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 f5, 3. Nf3 Nf6, 4. h3 d6, [ 4Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nbd2 d6 7. c3 Nc6 8. a4
a5 9. Qb3 Kh8 10. Bc4 d5 11. Be2 Ne4 12. h4 Bd6 13. Bxd6 Qxd6 0-1, Balogh S. (2250)
- Gara G. (2210), HUN-ch., 1997-98 ]
5. Nbd2 Be7, 6. e3 O-O, 7. Be2 Nc6, 8. c3 Bd7, 9. a4 Ne4, 10. Qc2 Nxd2, 11. Nxd2 e5,
12. Bh2 Kh8, 13. Nc4 exd4, 14. exd4 Bg5, 15. O-O f4, 16. Bf3 Bf5, 17. Qd2 Qd7, 18.
Rfe1 Rf6, 19. Re2 Raf8, 20. Rae1 Qc8, 21. b4 Bd7, 22. b5 Nd8, 23. Qb2 Bh4, 24. a5 g5,
25. Re7 g4, 26. hxg4 Rh6, 27. R7e4 Bg5, 28. Nd2 Bxg4, 29. Re8 Rxe8, 30. Rxe8+ Kg7,
31. Qb3 Be6, 32. d5 Bf7, 33. Re1 c6, .
Perdikis C. (2205) - Giulian P. M. (2270), Haifa, 1989
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 f5, 3. Nf3 Nf6, 4. e3 Be7, 5. h3 b6, 6. Be2 Bb7, 7. O-O O-O, 8. Nbd2 c5,
9. c3 Nc6, 10. a4 d5, 11. Ne5 Nxe5, 12. Bxe5 Bd6, 13. Nf3 Ne4, 14. Bxd6 Nxd6, 15. Ne5
Nf7, 16. f4 Nxe5, 17. fxe5 c4, 18. Qe1 Qg5, 19. Rf3 Bc6, 20. Qg3 Qxg3, 21. Rxg3 a6,
22. Rf3 b5, 23. a5 b4, 24. Rff1 Rab8, 25. Rfc1 bxc3, 26. bxc3 Rb2, 27. Kf1 Rfb8, 28.
Ke1 Be8, 29. g4 Bg6, 30. gxf5 Bxf5, 31. Bg4 Bxg4, 32. hxg4 Kf7, 33. Kf1 Kg6, 34. Kg1
Kg5, 35. Rf1 Kxg4, 36. Rf7 R8b7, 37. Raf1 g5, 38. Rxb7 Rxb7, 39. Rf6 Kg3, 40. Kf1 h5,
41. Rxe6 h4, 42. Rh6 h3, 43. e4 g4, 44. exd5 Kf3, 45. Ke1 Ke3, 46. Kd1 Kd3, 47. Kc1
Ke4, 48. d6 Kd5, 49. Kd1 g3, 50. Rxh3 g2, 51. Rg3 g1=Q+, 52. Rxg1 Rb1+, 53. Ke2
Rxg1, 54. Kf3 Ke6, 55. Ke4 Rg4+, 56. Kf3 Rh4, 57. Kg3 Rh8, 58. Kf4 Rh4+, 59. Kg3
Rh7, 60. Kg4 Rb7, 61. Kf4 Rb5, 62. Ke4, 0-1.
b) 2...c5
Semrl M. (2150) - Sale S. (2440), Ljubljana, 1996

[ECO "A40"]
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5, 3. e3 (3.c3 cxd4, 4.cxd4 Qb6) 3...Qb6, (3...Nf6!) 4. Nc3! Nf6, (4...Qxb2? 5.Nb5) 5.
Rb1 [ 5.Nf3 d5, 6.Nb5! Na6, 7.a4! (cf. Miles Bologan, 2001 : 1.d4 d5, 2.Nf3 Nf6, 3.Bf4 c5! 4.e3! Qb6,
5.Nc3! e6, 6.Nb5! Na6, 7.a4!) ]
5...cxd4, 6. exd4 Bb4, 7. Nf3 O-O, 8.Bd3 Qa5, 9. O-O Bxc3, 10. bxc3 d5, 11. Rb3 Nc6, 12. Ne5 Nxe5,
13. Bxe5 Nd7, 14.Bxh7+ Kxh7, 15. Qh5+ Kg8, 16. Bxg7 f5, 17. Qg6 Rf7, 18. Bh6+, 1-0.

Koch M. (2240) - Laurent C. (2310), ICCF-Cup11 V99 corr., 1997
1.d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5, 3. e3 Qb6, 4. Nc3 Nf6, 5. Nf3 Nc6,

[ 5d5 6.Nb5! Na6, 7.a4! (cf. Miles Bologan, 2001 : 1.d4 d5, 2.Nf3 Nf6, 3.Bf4 c5! 4.e3! Qb6, 5.Nc3!
e6, 6.Nb5! Na6, 7.a4!) ]
6.a3 cxd4, 7. exd4 Be7, 8. Be2 Nh5, 9. Be3 d5, 10. Ne5 Nf6, 11. O-O O-O, 12. Bd3 a6,
13. Re1 Bd6, 14. Qd2 Qc7, 15. Nxc6 bxc6, 16. h3 c5, 17. dxc5 Bxc5, 18. Bxc5 Qxc5, 19.
Qf4 Bb7, 20. Ne2 Rfc8, 21. Nd4 Qb6, 22. Rab1 a5, 23. c3 Ba6, 24. Bc2 Rab8, 25. Re3
Qc7, 26. Qh4 h6, 27. Rg3 Kf8, 28. Re1 Rb6, 29. b4 axb4, 30. axb4 Ra8, 31. Rf3 Bc8, 32.
g4 Ne4, 33. Bxe4 dxe4, 34. Qg3, .
Lyrberg P. (2405) - Karlsson L. (2500), Wrexham, 1994
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5, 3. e3 Qb6, 4. Nf3 Nf6, 5. Nbd2 d5, 6. Be2 Nc6, 7. dxc5 Qxb2, 8.Nb3
Bxc5, 9. O-O Be7, 10. Nbd4 Nxd4, 11. Nxd4 a6, 12. c4 O-O, 13. a4 dxc4, 14. Bxc4 Qb4,
15. Qe2 Qa5, 16. Nb3 Qd8, 17. Rfd1 Qe8, 18. Qf3 Bd7, 19. Qxb7 Bxa4, 20. Qf3 Bb5, 21.
Qe2 Nd5, 22. Be5 Bxc4, 23. Qxc4 Qb5, 24. Qxb5 axb5, 25. Nd4 b4, 26. Nc6 Bf6,
27.Bxf6 gxf6, 28. h3 Nc3, 29. Rxa8 Rxa8, 30. Rd7 Ra1+, 31. Kh2 Ra2, 32. Nxb4 Rxf2,
33.Nc6 Nd5, 34. e4 Nb6, 35. Rd8+ Kg7, 36. Ne7 f5, 37. exf5 Kf6, 38. Ng8+ Kxf5, 39.
Nh6+ Ke4, 40. Rf8 f5, 41. Ng4 Rb2, 42. Nf6+ Kf4, 43. Nxh7 Nd5, 44. Nf6 Nxf6, 45.
Rxf6 e5, 46. Kg1 Rb1+, 47. Kh2 e4, 48. g3+ Ke5, 49. Rf8 Rb2+, 50. Kg1 e3, 51. Re8+
Kd4, 52. h4 Kd3, 53. Rd8+ Ke4, 54. h5 Kf3, 55. Rd3 Rg2+, 56. Kf1 Rxg3, 0-1.
Orwatsch G. (2140) - Rausch S. (2320), Germany, 2003
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5, 3. e3 Qb6, 4. b3!? Nf6, 5. Bxb8 Rxb8, 6. Ne2 d6, 7. Nec3 Bd7, 8.
Be2 Be7, 9. O-O O-O, 10. a4 a6, 11. Bf3 cxd4, 12. exd4 d5, 13. Ne2 Qc7, 14. Nd2 b5,
15. axb5 axb5, 16. c3 Ra8, 17. Qb1 Bc6, 18. Qb2 Ne4, 19. b4 Nxd2, 20. Qxd2 Ra4,
21.Rxa4 bxa4, 22. Ra1 Bb5, 23. Ra3 Rc8, 24. g3 h6, 25. h4 g5, 26. hxg5 hxg5, 27. Kg2
f5, 28. Ng1 f4, 29. Bg4 Bd7, 30. Qe1 Qd6, 31. Rxa4 Rxc3, 32. Ra7 Rc6, 33. Nf3 fxg3,
34. Ne5 gxf2, 35. Qxf2 Be8, 36. Nxc6 Bxc6, 37. Qe3 e5, 38. Qxe5 Qxe5, 39. dxe5 d4+,
40. Bf3 Bxf3+, 41. Kxf3 Bxb4, 42. Kg4 d3, 43. Rd7 d2, 44. Kxg5 Kf8, 45. Kf6 Ke8, 46.
Ke6 Kf8, 47. Rd8+ Kg7, 48. Rd3 Bc3, 49. Rg3+ Kf8, 50. Rf3+ Ke8, 1-0.
Stock, M. (2225) - Huss A. (2340), Brocco, 1991
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5, 3. e3 Qb6, 4. b3 Nc6, 5. c3 Nf6, 6. Nd2 d5, 7. Bg3 cxd4, 8. exd4 Ba3,
9. Rb1 a5, 10. Nh3 O-O, 11. f4 Bd7, 12. Qf3 Ne7, 13. Nf2 Nf5, 14. Bd3 Rac8, 15.Nd1
Bb5, 16. Bf2 Bxd3, 17. Qxd3 Nd6, 18. O-O Nfe4, 19. Be1 f5, 20. Nf3 Qb5, 21. Qe3 Qa6,
22. Ne5 Rc7, 23. Rf3 Rfc8, 24. Kh1 b5, 25. c4 dxc4, 26. bxc4 b4, 27. c5 Nf7, 28.Kg1
Nxe5, 29. fxe5 Qc4, 30. Qd3 Qxa2, 31. Ne3 Rd8, 32. Rd1 Nxc5, 33. Qb5 Ne4, 34. Qb6
Ra7, 35. d5 Ng5, 36. Rg3 f4, 37. Rxg5 fxe3, 38. Qxe3 h6, 39. Rg4 Kh8, 40. Rh4 Qc2,
41.Rd3 Bc1, 42. Bd2 Bxd2, 43. Rxd2 Qc1+, 44. Kf2 Rf7+, 45. Kg3 Rxd5, 0-1.

Collier D. (2240) - McMichael R. (2260), Birmingham, 2001
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5, 3. e3 Qb6, 4. b3 Nf6, 5. c3 Nc6, 6. Nf3 d5, 7. Bd3 Be7, 8. O-O a5, 9.
h3 Bd7, 10. a4 O-O, 11. Na3 Rac8, 12. Nb5 Na7, 13. Nxa7 Qxa7, 14. Ne5 Be8, 15. Qb1
h6, 16. Rc1 b6, 17. Ra2 Nd7, 18. Nf3 Nb8, 19. e4 dxe4, 20. Bxe4 Bc6, 21. Re2 Qb7,
22.Bxb8 Rxb8, 23. Ne5 Bxe4, 24. Qxe4 Qxe4, .
Singer C. (2300) - Breutigam M. (2410), Altenkirchen, 2001
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5, 3. e3 Nf6, 4. c3 (4. Nc3? d5, 5. Nf3 Be7, 6. dxc5 Bxc5, 7. Bd3 Nc6,
8.Qe2 Qe7, 9. Bg5 h6, 10. Bh4 Bd7, 11. a3 Rd8) 4...Nc6, 5. Nd2 [ 5.Nf3 d5, 6.Nbd2
Bd6! 7.Bg3 (7.Ne5 Qc7, 8.Ndf3 cxd4) 7...Bxg3 8.hxg3 Qd6 and Bd7 ]
5d5, 6. Bd3 Be7, 7. h3 O-O, 8. Ngf3 c4, 9. Bc2 b5, 10. a3 Bb7, 11. O-O a5, 12. e4
dxe4, 13. Nxe4 Nd5, 14. Bd2 Qc7, 15. Re1 h6, 16. Qc1 f5, 17. Ng3 Bc8, 18. Nh5 Bd6,
19. Nxg7 Qxg7, 20. Bxh6 Qf6, 21. Bxf8 Kxf8, 22. Qg5 Qg7, 23. g3 Ra7, 24. h4 Qh8, 25.
Bxf5 Rg7, 26. Bg6 Be7, 27. Qh5 Qxh5, 28.Bxh5 Nf4, 29. Ne5 Nxh5, 30. Nxc6 Bxh4, 31.
Re5 Nxg3, 32. fxg3 Bxg3, 33. Rxb5 Bd7, 34.Rf1+ Ke8, 35. d5 exd5, 36. Nd4 Be5+, 37.
Kh1 Bxb5, 38. Re1 Re7, 39. Nxb5 Kd7, 40. a4 Rh7+, 41. Kg2 Rh5, 42. Kf3 Rf5+, 43.
Kg4 Rf4+, 44. Kg5 Bb8, 45. Rd1 Kc6, 46. Nd4+ Kb6, 47. Rh1 Rf7, 48. Rh6+ Kb7, 49.
Rc6 Ba7, 50. Rd6 Bxd4, 51. cxd4 Rf2, 52. Rxd5 Rxb2, 53. Rxa5 Rd2, 54. Rc5 Rxd4, 55.
a5 Ka6, 56. Kf5 Rh4, 57. Ke6 Rh6+, 58. Kd7, .
Heinzel O. (2370) - Hausrath D. (2445), Muelheim, 2000 *
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5, 3. e3 Nf6, 4. c3 cxd4, 5. exd4 b6, 6. Nf3 Bb7, 7. Bd3 Be7, 8. O-O O-
O, 9. a4 a6, 10. Qe2 d6, 11. h3 Qc7, 12. Nbd2 Nbd7, 13. Bh2 Rfe8, 14. Rfc1 Bf8, 15.a5
e5, 16. axb6 Qc6, 17. dxe5 dxe5, 18. Bxa6 Qxb6, 19. Bxb7 Qxb7, 20. Rxa8 Rxa8, 21.b4
e4, 22. Ne5 Ra2, 23. Qe1 Nb6, 24. Nec4 Nxc4, 25. Nxc4 Qb5, 26. Ne3 Qa4, 27. Rb1
Nd7, 28. c4 g6, 29. c5 Bh6, 30. Qd1 Qb5, 31. Bd6 Bxe3, 32. fxe3 Qc4, 33. Bf4 Qe6,
34.Ra1 Rxa1, 35. Qxa1 Qd5, 36. Qd4 Qc6, 37. Qd6, 1-0.
* [ ou : Kartsev S. (2230) - Schebler G. (2480), Muelheim, 2000 ]

Koch M. (2420) - Yeremenko A. (2395), ICCF Email, 1999
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5, 3. e3 Nf6, 4. c3 b6, 5. h3 Bb7, 6. Nf3 Be7, 7. Bd3 O-O, 8. Nbd2 Nc6,
9. O-O Rc8, 10. Nc4 (10.e4!?) 10d5, 11. Nce5 Nxe5, 12. Nxe5 c4, 13. Bc2 Nd7, 14.
Re1 Nxe5, 15. Bxe5 Bd6, 16. Bxd6 Qxd6, 17. e4 dxe4, 18. Bxe4 Bxe4, 19. Rxe4 Rfd8,
20. Qe2 Qc6, 21. Re1 Rd5, 22. Rg4 Rcd8, 23. Qd2 Kf8, 24. Qf4 Qd6, 25. Qf3 Ra5, 26.
Rf4 Qd7, 27.Qe2 Rxa2, 28. Qxc4 Qd5, 29. Qc7 Qd7, 30. Qc4 Rxb2, 31. Rxe6 Qd5, 32.
Qc7 Rd7, 33. Qe5 Qxe5, 34. Rxe5 Rb1+, 35. Kh2 f6, 36. Re3 a5, 37. Rh4 h6, 38. Rhe4
Kf7, 39. Re8 Ra7, 40. d5 Rb5, 41. c4 Rc5, 42. R8e4 a4, 43. Ra3 f5, 44. Rf4 Kf6, 45. g4
Ke5, 0-1.
Snchaud D. Tranchant S., Poitiers, 1996
1.d4 e6, 2.Bf4 c5, 3.d5 Qf6 !? 4.Bxb8 Qxb2 !? 5.Nd2 Rxb8, 6.e4 exd5, 7.exd5 De5+,
8.Be2 Qxd5, 9.Bf3 Qe6+, 10.Ne2 d6, 11.0-0 Nf6, 12.Re1 Be7, 13.Nc3 Qd7, 14.Qe2 Qd8,
15.g4 Be6, 16.g5 Nd7, 17.Bd5 Nf8, 18.f4 g6, 19.Rab1 Bf5, 20.Bxb7 Ne6, 21.Nd5 Kf8
(210-0 !) 22.Qe3 h6, 23.Qc3 Rh7, 24.Nxe7 Qxe7, 25.Bd5 Rxb1 (25Re8 !) 26.Rxb1
Nc7, 27.Nc4 hxg5, 28.Rb8+ Ne8, 29.Bc6 Bd7, 30.Rb7 Nf6 [ 30Qe2, 31.Rxd7 Qxh2+,
32.Kf1 Qxf4+, 33.Ke1 !! ] 31.fxg5 Ne8, 32.Rxd7 Qxg5+, 33.Kh1 Qc1+, 34.Kg2 Qg5+,
35.Qg3 Qf5, 36.Ne3 Qe6, 37.Rxa7 Nf6, 38.Ra4 Nh5, 39.Qf3 Nf6, 40.Rf4 Nh5, 41.Ra4
Nf6, 42.Nd5 Nh5, 43.Re4 Qf5, 44.Qxf5 gxf5, 45.Rh4 Nf6, 46.Rxh7 Nxh7, 47.h4 Kg7,
48.a4, 1-0.
Signalons deux sous-variantes inadaptes :
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 c5,

- 3. Nf3? cxd4, 4. Qxd4 [4. Nxd4 e5, 5. Bxe5 Qa5+, 6. Nd2 Qxe5, 7. N2f3 Qa5+, 8. c3
Nc6, 9. e3 a6, 10. Bc4 d5, 11. Be2 Nf6, 12. Qb3 Nxd4, 13. Nxd4 Bd6, 14. O-O O-O, 15.
Rad1 Qc7] 4Nc6, 5. Qd3 e5, 6. Bg3 f5, 7. Qxf5 d5, 8.Qg5 Be7, 9. Qc1 e4, 10. Ne5
Nf6, 11. Nxc6 bxc6, 12. e3 Bg4, 13. Be2 Bxe2, 14. Kxe2 O-O, 15. c3 Ng4, 16. h3 Bh4,
17. hxg4 Bxg3, 18. fxg3 Qg5, 19. Rf1 Qxg4+, 20. Kd2 Qxg3, 0-1 (35th). Soloviev M.
(2345) - Smirnov A. (2190), Tula, 2002
- 3. dxc5? Bxc5, 4. Bd6 Qb6, 5. Bxc5 Qxc5, 6. c3 Nf6, 7. Nf3 b6, 8.Nbd2 Bb7, 9. e3 O-
O, 10. Be2 Nc6, 11. O-O d5, 12. Qa4 Rfd8, 13. Rfd1 e5, 14. Rac1 Qe7, 15. Nf1 Ne4, 16.
Ng3 Nc5, 17. Qh4 Qxh4, 18. Nxh4 g6, 19. Nf3 Ne6, 0-1 (42nd). De Wolf J. (2180) -
Pliester L. (2365), Vlissingen, 1997
- 3. dxc5? Bxc5, 4. e3 d5, 5. c3 Nf6, 6. Nf3 Nc6, 7. Nbd2 O-O, 8.Bd3 Re8, 9. Nb3 Bd6,
10. Bg5 h6, 11. Bh4 e5, 0-1 (34th). Henneberke F. (2225) - Haugli P. (2350), Gausdal,
1988

c) 2...b6
Boguszlavszkij J. (2260) - Abella Vazquez C. (2120), Budapest, 2002

[ECO "A40"]
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 b6, (2...b5, 3. Nf3 Bb7, 4. Nbd2 Nf6, 5. e3 a6, 6. Bd3 Be7, 7.a4!? ) 3.
Nd2 Bb7, 4. e4 Nf6, 5. Bd3 d5, 6. e5 Nfd7, 7. Ngf3 Be7, 8. O-O c5, 9. c3 Nc6, 10. Rc1
cxd4, 11. Nxd4 Ncxe5, 12. Bxe5 Nxe5, 13. Bb5+ Nd7, 14. Qg4 Kf8, 15. f4 Nf6, 16. Qe2
Bd6, 17. Rce1 a6, 18. Bd3 Qc7, 19. g3 b5, 20. N2f3 Ne4, 21. Ng5 Bc5, 22. Nxe4 dxe4,
23. Bxe4 Rd8, 24. Qe3 Bxe4, 25. Qxe4 g6, 26. Rd1 Ke7, 27. f5 Bxd4+, 28. cxd4 gxf5,
29. Rxf5 Rhg8, 30. Rxf7+ Kxf7, 31. Qxh7+ Rg7, 32. Rf1+ Ke8, 33. Qh8+ Kd7, 34.
Qxg7+ Kc8, 35. Qxc7+ Kxc7, 36. Rf4 Kd6, 37. h4, 1-0.
Roppel K. (2260) Chigvintsev A. (2395), RUS-ch sf, Novosibirsk, 1998
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 b6, 3. e3 Bb7, 4. Nf3 Ne7, 5. Bd3 d6, 6. Nbd2 Nd7, 7. Qe2 Nd5, 8. c3
Nxf4, 9. exf4 Be7, 10. O-O-O O-O, 11. h4 Nf6, 12. Ng5 Qd7, 13. Nde4 Bxe4, 14. Bxe4
d5, 15. Bc2 c5, 16. Nf3 cxd4, 17. cxd4 Rac8, 18. Ne5 Qd6, 19. Kb1 Rc7, 20. g4 Rfc8,
21.Rc1 Nd7, 22. g5 Nxe5, 23. fxe5 Qb4, 24. Rhd1 b5, 25. f4 g6, 26. h5 Bf8, 27. Qg4
Rc4, 28. Qe2 Qa5, 29. Qe3 Qb6, 30. Rd2 Qc7, 31. Rh2 a5, 32. Qd3 Qa7, 33. hxg6 fxg6,
34.Rch1 Qxd4, 35. Qh3 Qa7, 36. Bxg6 Bg7, 37. Qxe6+ Kf8, 38. Qf6+, 1-0.
Kovacevic V. (2445) - Kovacevic B. (2300), Pula, 1996
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 b6, 3. e3 Bb7, 4. Nf3 f5, 5. Bd3 Nf6, 6. h3 Be7, 7. g4 Ne4, 8. gxf5 exf5,
9. Rg1 O-O, 10. Nbd2 d6, 11. Bxe4 fxe4, 12. Ng5 Bxg5, 13. Bxg5 Qe8, 14. Qg4 Rf7, 15.
Rg2 Nd7, 16. O-O-O Nf8, 17. Rdg1 Qe6, 18. c4 Qxg4, 19. Rxg4 Rxf2, 20. Nxe4 Bxe4,
21. Rxe4 Ng6, 22. Reg4 Raf8, 23. R4g2 Rxg2, 24. Rxg2 Rf3, 25. Rh2 h6, 26. Bd8 Rf7,
27. Rg2 Kh7, 28. h4 Nf8, 29. h5 Ne6, 30. Bh4 Rf5, 31. d5 Rxh5, 32. Be7 Nc5, 33. Bd8
Re5, 34. Bxc7 Ne4, 35. Kc2 Re7, 36. Bd8 Re8, 37. Bh4 g5, 38. Be1 Kg6, 39. b4 h5,
40.Kd3 Kf5, 41. Rg1 h4, 42. Rf1+ Kg6, 43. Rf3 Nf6, 44. a4 Ng4, 45. Kd4 Rc8, 46. c5
bxc5+, 47. bxc5 Rxc5, 48. Bb4 Ne5, 0-1.
Boguszlavszkij J. (2285) - Czebe A. (2460), Balatonlelle, 2002
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 b6, 3. Nf3 Bb7, 4. Nbd2 g6, 5. e4 Bg7, 6. c3 d6, 7. Bb5+ Nd7, 8. O-O
Ne7, 9. Re1 O-O, 10. Qa4 Nf6, 11. Ba6 Bxa6, 12. Qxa6 Nh5, 13. Be3 Qd7, 14. Rad1 f5,
15. Bg5 Kh8, 16. exf5 Nxf5, 17. g4 h6, 18. gxf5 hxg5, 19. fxe6 Qe7, 20. Qb5 g4, 21. Qg5
Qxg5, 22. Nxg5 Rf5, 23. h4 gxh3, 24. Nxh3 Re8, 25. Nf1 Bh6, 26. d5 Nf6, 27. c4 Rh5,
28. Kg2 Rh4, 29. b3 b5, 30. cxb5 Rb4, 31. Rd3 Rxb5, 32. Red1 Rc5, 33. Ne3 Kg7, 34.

Nc4 Rb8, 35. Ng1 a5, 36. a4 Kf8, 37. Ne2 Ke7, 38. Ng3 Bg7, 39. f3 c6, 40. dxc6 d5, 41.
Ne5 Rc2+, 42. R1d2 Rxd2+, 43. Rxd2 Kxe6, 44. Nxg6 Ne8, 45. Rd3 d4, 46. Nh5 Be5,
47. Nxe5 Kxe5, 48. Ng3 Nc7, 49. Ne4 Ne6, 50. Kf2 Kd5, 51. Nf6+ Kxc6, 52. Kg3 Rd8,
53.Ne4 Kd5, 54. Nf6+ Ke5, 55. Ng4+ Kf5, 56. Rd1 d3, 57. Ne3+ Ke5, 58. Nc4+ Kd4,
59. Nxa5 Rg8+, 60. Kf2 Nf4, 61. Nc4 Rg2+, 62. Ke1 Rh2, 0-1.
d) 2...Nf6
Maric I. (2260) - Kirschner A. (2150), Vienna open 13th, 1998

[ECO "A40"]
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 Nf6, 3. e3 b6, 4. Be2 Bb7, 5. Bf3 d5, 6. Nd2 Bd6, 7. Ne2 Qe7, 8. c3
Nbd7, 9. Qa4 O-O, 10. O-O c5, 11. Rfe1 e5, 12. dxe5 Nxe5, 13. Bxe5 Bxe5, 14. Rad1
Qc7, 15. Nf1 Bc6, 16. Qc2 Rad8, 17. Rd2 Ne4, 18. Bxe4 dxe4, 19. Red1 Rxd2, 20. Rxd2
Rd8, 21. Neg3 Rxd2, 22. Qxd2 g6, 23. Qe2 f5, 24. f4 exf3, 25. gxf3 Qb7, 26. Kf2 Kg7,
27. Nd2 Qf7, 28. Qc4 Bd5, 29. Qa4 h5, 30. a3 Be6, 31. f4 Bf6, 32. Nf3 Qc7, 33. Qd1
Qd7, 34. Qxd7+ Bxd7, 35. h4 Kf7, 36. Ng5+ Ke7, 37. e4 fxe4, 38. N3xe4 Bg7, 39. Ke3
Be6, 40. b3 Bd5, 41. c4 Bc6, 42. b4 cxb4, 43. axb4 a5, 44. b5 Bd7, 45. Kd3 Bf5, 46. c5
bxc5, 47. Kc4 Bxe4, 48. Nxe4 Bd4, 49. b6 Kd7, 50. Kb5 a4, 51. Kxa4 Kc6, 52. b7 Kxb7,
53. f5 gxf5, 54. Nd6+ Kc6, 55. Nxf5 Be5, 56. Kb3 Kd5, 57. Kc2 Ke4, 58. Ne7 Kf4, 59.
Kd3 Bd4, 60. Kc4 Kg4, 61. Ng6 Bf2, 62. Kd5 Kf5, 63. Ne7+ Kf6, 64. Nc6 Bg1, 65. Ke4
Ke6, 66. Nd8+ Kd7, 67. Nf7 Bf2, 68. Kd5 Bg1, 69. Ne5+ Ke7, 70. Nd3 Kf6, 71. Nxc5
Bxc5, 72. Kxc5 Kf5, 73. Kd5 Kg4, 74. Ke4 Kxh4, 75. Kf3 Kh3, 76. Kf2 Kh2, 77. Kf1
h4, .
Maksimovic S. (2290) - Petraki, M. (2035), Sparti zt (Women), 1991
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 Nf6, 3. e3 b6, 4. Nf3 Bb7, 5. Nbd2 d6, 6. h3 Nbd7, 7. Bd3 Qe7, 8. e4 e5,
9. Bg5 g6, 10. O-O Bg7, 11. Re1 O-O, 12. c3 Rfe8, 13. a4 Nf8, 14. a5 Ne6, 15. Bc4 h6,
16. Bxe6 Qxe6, 17. d5 Qd7, 18. Be3 Nh5, 19. Qa4 Qe7, 20. Nf1 f5, 21. Ng3 f4, 22. Nxh5
gxh5, 23. Bd2 Bf6, 24. c4 Kh7, 25. Kh2 Rg8, 26. axb6 axb6, 27. Qd1 Qg7, 28. Rg1
Rxa1, 29. Qxa1 Bc8, 30. b4 Qg6, 31. Qb1 Bd7, 32. Qd3 Rg7, 33. Bc1 Rg8, 34. Ba3 Rg7,
35. c5 bxc5, 36. bxc5 Be7, 37. c6 Bc8, 38. Bb4 Bf6, 39. Ba5 Bd8, 40. Nd2 Bh4, 41. Qe2
Bxh3, 42. Nf3 Bg4, 43. Nxh4 Qf6, 44. Nf3 Bxf3, 45. Qxf3 Qh4+, 46. Qh3 Qxf2, 47. Be1
Qc2, 48. Qf5+ Kg8, 49. Bh4 Qe2, 50. Bf6 Rf7, 51. Rb1, 1-0.
Schlindwein R. (2440) - Feygin M. (2470), Bundesliga 2000-01
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 Nf6, 3. e3 b6, 4. Nf3 Bb7, 5. Nbd2 Be7, 6. h3 d6, 7. c3 Nbd7, 8. Bh2 O-
O, 9. Qb1 c5, 10. Bd3 h6, 11. O-O a6, 12. b4 cxb4, 13. cxb4 b5, 14. a4 Qb6, 15. Rc1
Nb8, 16. axb5 axb5, 17. Ra5 Rxa5, 18. bxa5 Qxa5, 19. Qxb5 Qxb5, 20. Bxb5 Rc8,
21.Rxc8+ Bxc8, 22. Nc4 Ne4, 23. Ne1 Bd7, 24. Bxd7 Nxd7, 25. Na5 d5, 26. Nc6 Kf8,

27. Nd3 Ke8, 28. f3 Nd2, 29. Kf2 Nc4, 30. Ke2 Ndb6, 31. e4 Bf6, 32. Nc5 Be7, 33. Kd3
Nb2+, 34.Kc3 Nd1+, 35. Kd2 Nb2, 36. Nb4 dxe4, 37. fxe4 N2a4, 38. Nba6 Bg5+, 39.
Kc2 Be3, 40.Kb3 Nxc5+, 41. dxc5 Nc8, 42. Kc4 Na7, 43. Bb8 Nc6, 44. Kb5 Kd7, 45.
Kb6 f5, 46. exf5 exf5, 47. Bd6 g5, 48. Nb8+ Nxb8, 49. Bxb8 g4, 50. hxg4 fxg4, 51. Kb5
h5, 52. g3 Bf2, 53. c6+ Kc8, 54. Be5 h4, .
Heindrich M. (2165) - Wege J. (2260), Hessenliga, 1998-99
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 Nf6, 3. e3 b6, 4. Nf3 Bb7, 5. Nbd2 Be7, 6. Bd3 d5, 7. c3 Ne4, 8. h4 Bd6,
9. Bxe4 dxe4, 10. Ng5 Bxf4, 11. exf4 Qd6, 12. Ngxe4 Qxf4, 13. Qe2 Nd7, 14. f3 O-O-O,
15. g3 Qf5, 16. O-O-O Kb8, 17. Nb3 Nf6, 18. Rhf1 a5, 19. Nxf6 gxf6, 20. Rde1 h5, 21.
g4 Qf4+, 22. Qe3 Qxe3+, 23. Rxe3 Rdg8, 24. Nd2 Rg6, 25. Ne4 hxg4, 26. fxg4 Bxe4,
27. Rxe4 Rxh4, 28. Ref4 Rhxg4, 29. Rxf6 Rxf6, 30. Rxf6 Rg7, 31. Kd2 Kc8, 32. c4 Kd7,
33. d5 Ke7, 34. Rh6 exd5, 35. Rc6 Kd7, 36. cxd5 Rg5, 37. Rf6 Rxd5+, 38. Ke3 Ke7, 39.
Rc6 Rc5, 40. Rxc5 bxc5, 41. b3, 0-1.
Muranyi K. J. (2260) - Schmittdiel E. (2480), Crailsheim, 1999
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 Nf6, 3. e3 b6, 4. Nf3 Bb7, 5. Be2 d6, 6. h3 Nbd7, 7. O-O g6, 8. a4 a5, 9.
c3 Bg7, 10. Nbd2 O-O, 11. b4 axb4, 12. cxb4 Nd5, 13. Qb3 Nxf4, 14. exf4 Nf6, 15.a5
Bd5, 16. Bc4 c6, 17. a6 b5, 18. Bxd5 Nxd5, 19. Rfc1 Qb6, 20. Ne4 Rfd8, 21. g3 Rxa6,
22. Rxa6 Qxa6, 23. Nc3 Nb6, 24. Nd1 Nc4, 25. Ne3 d5, 26. g4 Ra8, 27. Qd3 Qa3, 28.
Rc3 Qxb4, 29. Kg2 Qd6, 30. f5 exf5, 31. gxf5 Re8, 32. Ng4 h5, 33. fxg6 fxg6, 34. Nge5
Nxe5, 35. dxe5 Bxe5, 36. Rc1 Bb2, 37. Rg1 Qf6, 38. Kh1 Re4, 39. Ng5 Rf4, 40. Qe2
Be5, 41. f3 Rb4, 0-1.
Cody P. C. (2360) - Laurent C. (2310), ICCF Email, 1996
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 Nf6, 3. e3 c5, 4. Nf3 Nc6, 5. Nbd2 Be7, 6. dxc5 Bxc5, 7. Nb3 Be7, 8.Bd3
Nh5, 9. Be5 Nxe5, 10. Nxe5 Nf6, 11. O-O O-O, 12. Nd4 d6, 13. Nc4 d5, 14. Ne5 Bd6,
15. f4 Bxe5, 16. fxe5 Nd7, 17. Qg4 Qc7, 18. Nxe6 Qxe5, 19. Qh4 Qxe3+, 20. Kh1 h6,
21.Nxf8 Nxf8, 22. Rae1 Qb6, 23. Re8 f6, 24. Rfe1 Qd6, 25. Qh5 f5, 26. R1e7 Qf6, 27.
Rc7 b5, 28. Rcxc8 Rxc8, 29. Rxc8 Qxb2, 30. Qxf5 Qa1+, 31. Bf1 Qf6, 32. Qe5 Qxf1#,
0-1.
Beblik C. (2245) - Guth T. (2250), Oberliga Nord O 1998-99
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 Nf6, 3. Nf3 c5, 4. c3 b6, 5. e3 Be7, 6. Bd3 O-O, 7. Nbd2 Ba6, 8. Bxa6
Nxa6, 9. Qe2 Nb8, 10. O-O d5, 11. Ne5 Nfd7, 12. Ndf3 Nxe5, 13. Nxe5 f6, 14. Nf3 Nc6,
15. e4 cxd4, 16. cxd4 e5, 17. Rac1 dxe4, 18. Rxc6 Qd5, 19. Qc4 Qxc4, 20. Rxc4 exf4,
21. Re1 f5, 22. Ne5 Bd6, 23. Nc6 Rfe8, 24. h3 a5, 25. Kf1 Kf7, 26. Rd1 e3, 27. Ke2
exf2+, 28. Kxf2 Re4, 29. Rd3 Rae8, 30. Rc2 g5, 31. Rb3 h5, 32. Rb5 g4, 33. Rxf5+ Kg6,

34. hxg4 hxg4, 35. Rd5 R4e6, 36. Rb5 f3, 37. gxf3 g3+, 38. Kf1 Re1+, 39. Kg2 R1e2+,
40. Rxe2 Rxe2+, 41. Kg1 Re1+, 42. Kg2 Re2+, 43. Kf1 g2+, 44. Kg1 Bg3, 45. Rxb6
Bf2+, 0-1.
Fomina T. (2270) - Bashkite V. (2065), Puhajarve, 2001
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 Nf6, 3. e3 d5, 4. Nf3 c5, 5. Be2 Qb6, 6. Qc1 Nc6, 7. c3 Bd7, 8. O-O Rc8,
9. Rd1 Be7, 10. Be5 Nxe5, 11. Nxe5 Bd6, 12. f4 cxd4, 13. exd4 Bb5, 14. Bf3 Ne4, 15.
Qe3 f5, 16. Bxe4 dxe4, 17. Nd2 O-O, 18. b3 Bxe5, 19. fxe5 Bd3, 20. Nc4 Bxc4, 21. bxc4
Rxc4, 22. Rab1 Qc6, 23. d5 exd5, 24. Qxa7 b5, 25. Rb2 Ra8, 26. Qf2 Qc5, 27. Qxc5
Rxc5, 28. Kf2 Kf7, 29. Ke3 Ke6, 30. Kf4 g5+, 31. Kxg5 Kxe5, 32. g3 Ra6, 33. Rbd2
Rd6, 34. h3 Rcc6, 35. g4 f4, 0-1.
e) 2...d5
Koch M. (2420) - Namyslo H. (2480), ICCF Email, 1999

[ECO "A40"]
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 d5, 3. e3 Bd6, 4. Bg3 Nf6, 5. Bd3 c5, 6. c3 Bxg3, 7. hxg3 Qb6, 8. Qb3
Nc6, 9. Nf3 Bd7, 10. Nbd2 h6, 11. Qxb6 axb6, 12. O-O O-O, 13. a3 Rfe8, 14. c4 cxd4,
15. cxd5 exd5, 16. Nxd4 Nxd4, 17. exd4 Rac8, 18. Rfe1 Kf8, 19. Nf3 Rc7, 20. Ne5 Ba4,
21. Rec1 Rec8, 22. Rxc7 Rxc7, 23. Re1 Ne8, 24. Ng4 Bc2, 25. Be2, .
Borras Duran P. (2280) - Oliva Valero O. (2245), Santa Coloma, 1996
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 d5, 3. e3 Nf6, 4. Nd2 Bd6, 5. Bg3 c5, 6. c3 Nc6, 7. Ngf3 O-O, 8. Bd3
Re8, 9. Ne5 Qc7, 10. f4 g6, 11. O-O b6, 12. Bh4 Be7, 13. Qf3 Nd7, 14. Qh3 Bxh4,
15.Qxh4 f5, 16. Rf3 Ncxe5, 17. fxe5 Nf8, 18. g4 Qd7, 19. Qf2 a5, 20. gxf5 gxf5, 21. Kh1
Ba6, 22. Rg1+ Ng6, 23. Bxa6 Rxa6, 24. Rfg3 Kf8, 25. Qe2 Ra7, 26. Qh5 Qg7, 27. Rxg6
hxg6, 28. Rxg6 Qh7, 29. Rf6+, 1-0.
Boguszlavszkij J. (2280) - Lund E. (2270), Budapest, 2003
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 d5, 3. e3 Bd6, 4. Nh3 Nf6, 5. Nd2 O-O, 6. Bd3 c5, 7. c3 Nc6, 8. Bxd6
Qxd6, 9. f4 Rb8, 10. O-O b5, 11. g4 e5, 12. fxe5 Nxe5, 13. dxe5 Qxe5, 14. Nf2 Qxe3, 15.
Qe2 Qg5, 16. Nf3 Qf4, 17. Qe5 Qxf3, 18. Qxb8 c4, 19. Bc2 Bf5, 20. Bd1 Qe3, 21.Qg3
Qd2, 22. gxf5 Qxb2, 23. Bg4 h5, 24. Rfb1 Qd2, 25. Rd1 Qc2, 26. Bh3 Re8, 27. Re1 Rd8,
28. Qc7 Rd7, 29. Qe5 a5, 30. Re2 Qa4, 31. Rb1 Kh7, 32. Bf1 b4, 33. Nh3 Ne4, 34.f6
Nxf6, 35. Ng5+ Kg6, 36. Bh3 Ng4, 37. Bxg4 hxg4, 38. Rf1 f6, 39. Qf5+ Kh6, 40. Re8
fxg5, 41. Rh8#, 1-0.

f) 2...Ne7
Olejarczyk B. (2170) - Borysiak B. (2275), Warsaw-ch., 1997

[ECO "A40"]
1. d4 e6, 2. Bf4 Ne7, 3. e3 Ng6, 4. Bg3 b6, 5. Nf3 Bb7, 6. Nbd2 Be7, 7. Bd3 d6, 8. h4
Nd7, 9. h5 Ngf8, 10. e4 h6, 11. Qe2 Nh7, 12. O-O-O a6, 13. e5 d5, 14. Nh4 Nhf8, 15. f4
c5, 16. c3 Qc7, 17. Kb1 c4, 18. Bc2 O-O-O, 19. Qg4 Rg8, 20. f5 Bxh4, 21. Bxh4 Re8,
22. Rhf1 Nb8, 23. Rf2 Bc6, 24. fxe6 Nxe6, 25. Rdf1 Rgf8, 26. Bg6 Bd7, 27. Rxf7 Rxf7,
28. Bxf7 Ng5, 29. Qf4 Nxf7, 30. Qxf7 Qc6, 31. Qxg7 Qe6, 32. Rf6 Rg8, 33. Rf8+ Rxf8,
34. Qxf8+ Kb7, 35. Qf3 b5, 36. b3 Nc6, 37. b4 Qg8, 38. Kb2 Bg4, 39. Qg3 Qe6, 40. Bf6
Qf5, 41. Nf3 Qe4, 42. Qf2 Bf5, 43. Qd2 a5, 44. bxa5 Ka6, 45. Bg7 Kxa5, 46. Bf8 b4, 47.
cxb4+ Kb5, 48. Ka3 Qb1, 49. Bc5 Qa1, 50. Qb2 Qd1, 51. Qc3 Bb1, 52. Kb2 Bd3, 53.
Ne1 Qe2+, 54. Kc1 Bf5, 55. Qd2 Qf1, 56. Qd1 c3, 57. a4+ Kc4, 58. Nc2, 0-1.
ADDENDA
***
1.d4 f5, 2.Nc3 d5, 3.e4 dxe4, 4.Bf4!? [A80]
Wornath K. (2395) Schmidt-Schaeffer S. (2310) , open, 2000
1.d4 f5, 2.Nc3 d5, 3.e4 dxe4, 4.Bf4 Nf6, 5.f3 c6, 6.Bc4 Nbd7, 7.Nh3 Nb6, 8.Bb3 Nbd5,
9.0-0 e6, 10.fxe4 Nxc3, 11.bxc3 Nxe4, 12.Be5 Qe7, [12...Nxc3, 13.Qh5+ Ke7, 14.Rxf5]
13.Qd3 Bd7, 14.a4 0-0-0, 15.Rab1 Qa3, [15...Be8, =] 16.Bc4 c5? [16...Bd6,
17.Bxd6 Nxd6, (17...Qxd6? 18.Ba6) ] 17.Ba6 Bc6, 18.Bxb7+! Bxb7, 19.Rxb7!
[19Qxa4, 20.Rb8+ Kd7, 21.dxc5+ Bd6, 22.Rb4], 1-0.
Ross D. (2345) Zubac M. , CANch. Richmond, 2002
1.d4 f5, 2.Nc3 d5, 3.e4 dxe4, 4.Bf4 c6, 5.Qd2 Nf6, 6.f3 Be6, 7.fxe4 Nxe4, 8.Nxe4 fxe4,
9.Ne2 Nd7, 10.Nc3 Nf6, 11.g3 Qd7, 12.Bg2 0-0-0, 13.0-0-0 Bg4, 14.Nxe4 Nxe4,
15.Bxe4 Bxd1, 16.Rxd1 e6, 17.Qa5, -.
***

Snchaud D. Cairou Y., Le Mans, 1995
Krecjik gambit
1.d4 f5, 2.g4 fxg4, 3.e4 (3.Bf4!?? d6) 3...c5 (3e5!?) 4.d5 (4.dxc5!? Qa5+, 5.Nc3 Qxc5,
+=) 4...d6, 5.Nc3 Nf6, 6.Bg5 (6.h3 g3!?) 6...Nbd7, 7.f4 gxf3 e. p., 8.Nxf3 g6, 9.Qd2
Bg7, 10.Be2 0-0, 11.Nh4! (- 11.0-0-0 Ng4! ; - 11.h3/h4 Nh5!) 11Ne5, 12.h3 b5, [
12Qb6!? 13.Rb1 (13.0-0-0 Nxe4!! 14.Nxe4 Nf3!) 13a6, 14.Ng2 Qa7! 15.a4! Bd7,
16.a5! ] 13.Qe3 b4? (- 13Qb6! & Bd7 & c4 ; - 13Nc4!) 14.Nd1 Qb6, 15.Nf2 Bd7,
16.c4? [ 16.Qg3! (16.0-0 c4!) 16c4, 17.Be3 or 16Bb5, 17.Bg4 ] 16bxc3, 17.bxc3
e6! [ 17c4! 18.Ng2 (- 18.Qg3 Qb2! ; - 18.Qd2 Nxd5!!) 18e6! ] 18.dxe6 Bxe6, 19.0-0
Qc7?! (- 19...c4! 20.Ng2 ; - 19...Rab8!) 20.Ng2 Nc4?! (20Bc4) 21.Qg3 Nb6?
(21Ne5) 22.Rfd1 Rad8, 23.h4 c4, 24.Bf3 Rd7, 25.Nf4 Bf7, 26.Ng4 Nh5, 27.Nxh5
gxh5, 28.Nh6+ Kh8, 29.Nf5 Bxc3 (29Bg6, 30.Nxg7! Kxg7, 31.Be3!?) 30.Rac1 Be5 (-
30Bg7, 31.Nxg7 Kxg7, 32.Bd8+! ; - 30Bb2, 31.Rc2!) 31.Qxe5+ dxe5, 32.Bf6+, 1-0.
Cornil E. Deutch P., Bruxelles, 2005

1.d4 f5, 2.Qd3!? d5, 3.g4 e6, (le Manhattan Gambit : 1.d4 f5, 2.Qd3 e6, 3.g4 d5!?) 4.g5
g6, (4c5!? 5.c3 Nc6, 6.Nf3 Bd6) 5.Bf4 Bd6, 6.Qg3 Bxf4, 7.Qxf4 Ne7, 8.Nf3 Nbc6,
9.Nc3 a6, 10.h4 Bd7, 11.e3 Nc8!? 12.h5 Kf7, (12...gxh5, 13.Qh4 Nd6, 14.Qxh5+ Ke7,
15.0-0-0) 13.hxg6+ Kxg6, (13...hxg6, 14.Rxh8 Qxh8, 15.Qxc7) 14.Qh4 Qf8, (14...h5,
15.Ne2 Nd6, 16.Nf4) 15.Be2 Be8, 16.Qh5+ Kg7, 17.Qh6+ Kg8, 18.Qxe6+ Qf7,
19.Qxd5 Nd6, 20.0-0-0 Nb4, 21.Qxf7+ Bxf7, 22.a3 Nxd5, 23.Nxd5 Bxd5, 24.Rh2 Kg7,
25.Ne5 Raf8, 26.Nd7 Rf7, 27.Nf6 Bc6, 28.d5 Bd7, 29.Rdh1 Kf8, 30.Nxh7+, 1-0.
***
More informations on gambits : Mieux Jouer Aux Echecs,

http://www.mjae.com. My book on Emil Diemer and B.-D.G., Diemer-
Duhm gambit, Latvian gambit, Bogart gambit, Fajarovicz gambit, Boden
gambit, David Gedult, etc. [ and Chess history, Chessbooks... ]
Dany Snchaud

The Jarvis System - Gifford
On September 4th of 2006, along a sandy shore of

Lake Erie, I was a spectator at small invitational event
in Cleveland,Ohio. Unfortunately I did not get to play
in the event, due to family commitments, but I did get
to play several fun games.
Two of them were against a young man named Chris

Jarvis. He was visiting from a poor suburb of south
Chicago where he then reigned as chess champion of
his neighborhood; and he still might be champ there.
In both our games Chris used the following system.

To my knowledge, it has no name, and so I will refer
to it as the Jarvis System because Chris said he
developed the opening on his own.
1. e3 e5 2. d3 d5 3. Ne2 f5 4. Nd2 Nf6

(first diagram)
5. Ng3 f4 . . . (second diagram)
And after f4, Black had no problem winning the

games, due to later errors by White, probably caused
by positional pressure.
But that is not why I present this opening. I present it

because I found it to be interesting. White throws
away his initiative to steer Black away from familiar
territory. Later plans for White include moving the
Knight from d2 to b3 and centralizing Bishops at d2
and e2. Another plan is to keep the Knight at d2, push
pawn to b3 and then fianchetto the Queens Bishop.
Chris stated he has had a lot of success with his system

and that he was surprised that it failed so miserably in
our games. But was it the system that failed? Or simply
mid-game blunders?
What should Black do against such a non-comittal opening? I would say to grab the center, then
pressure white. At any rate, I think it is an interesting system... but that to win with it requires
one to sit back and wait for Black to make a serious error. Not a good chess practice. Opinions
from UON readers regarding this system, and any complete games (should they be willing to
experiment with it) are more than welcomed.

18 May, Aug 07 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

18 May, Aug 07 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UON 18 May -Aug.

Dedicated to gambiteers and

Senior Editor: Gary K. Gifford

Contributors to UON 18 (in order of articles)

A Word About the Articles . . .

UONs 15 and up are available for upload from Chess-Unorthodox-UON@yahoogroups.com You

UON 18 April 2007 by Gary K. Gifford

1. Opening Remarks & Chess Cartoon by G. K. Gifford 2

2. The Benko Opening, 1. g3, by Tim Sanders 3

3. Sicilian Defense: Mongoose Variation by FM Eric Schiller 6

4. The Nh6 Hero, du Chattel part 2,

5. Loss of Time and Space, a review, by Tim Sanders 18

6. The Unicorn Defense, by Gustav Fhager 19

7. Jerome Gambit Revisited, by Rick Kennedy 30

8. Gambetto Blackmar Diemer Variante 1.d4 b6 2.Nc3,

10. The Jarvis System, by G. K. Gifford 56

UON 18 -1- May-August 2007

Opening Remarks & Chess Cartoon

I was given medicines to lower the

Aside from that bit of news, Id like

Good chess to all,

UON 18 -2- May-August 2007

The Benko Opening (1.g3) remains one of my favorite openings as White.

White can either engineer a situation in which the fianchetto is an

I think perhaps, that flexibility is why it remains one of my favorites. It is versatile,

The move 1.g3 allows Black a great deal of flexibility in choice of

boilermaker1 (2066) - Shermy (1865) [A00]

1.g3 The Benko Opening, A00

UON 18 -3- May-August 2007

Here is another game I posted on the UCO group last year.

boilermaker1 (2029) - hovard (1818)

UON 18 -4- May-August 2007

So, is 1.g3 UCO? Here is my support for it being UCO:

1. It is in Dunningtons Winning Unorthodox Openings.

1. Dunnington, Angus, Winning Unorthodox Openings, 2000, Everyman Publishers,

UON 18 -5- May-August 2007

UON 18 -6- May-August 2007

9.Nc3 b4 10.Nd5 Bg4 Pressure on d4 is an important theme in such positions,

UON 18 -7- May-August 2007

The games of Philip J. du Chattel

By accident I noticed your article on Philip du Chattel, in the Unorthodox Newsletter

UON 18 -8- May-August 2007

De Boer,G (2390) Gelpke,P [A42]

1.f3 c6 2.c4 g6 3.c3 g7 4.d4 d6 5.e4 h6 6.e2 f6 7.d5

(diagram after 10....f7)

It would mean that he had to create a new opening repertoire with

He preferred to publish himself so had to think about a way to do

Unfortunately the plans did not materialize.

UON 18 -9- May-August 2007

du Chattel,F (2200) Van der Sterren,P (2200)

1.e4 g6 2.g3 g7 3.g2 c5 4.f4 c6 5.h3 d6 6.0-0 e6 7.d3

Diagram after 8.c3

Gerard: About the soundness or unsoundness of du Chattel's system. Well, we do not

UON 18 -10- May-August 2007

So long as an opening is considered dubious, it may be played.

The games From 1974 to 1984 - Chronological Order

Ligterink,Gert (2360) du Chattel,Philip J [B06] sf ch Arnhem (3), 1974

UON 18 -11- May-August 2007

1.e4 c5 2. d3 Nc6 3.c3 g6 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 e5 6. Nh3 Nge7 7. Be3 d6 8. f3 b6

Talking about deer-skins: I remember being seriously underdressed at the

NED Ch Leeuwarden 1975 Average elo: 2320 <=> Category: 3

UON 18 -12- May-August 2007

Bohm,H (2300) du Chattel,P (2200) [A40] ch Leeuwarden NED (3), 1975