Jan Pinski

Italian game
and
Evans gambit
 Jan Pinski

Italian game
and
Evans gambit

EVERYMAN CHESS
Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com
First published in 2005 by Gloucester Publishers pic (formerly Everyman Publishers pic),
Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT

Copyright © 2005 Jan Pinski

The right of Jan Pinski to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85744 373 X

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708
email: [email protected]
website: www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under licence from Random House Inc.

Everyman Chess Series (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov
Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs
General editor: John Emms

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.
Production by Navigator Guides.
Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.
1 e4 e5 2 &f3 £k6 3 i.c4

Part One: Italian Game

1 Introduction and the Italian Four Knights 5
2 The First Steps in the Italian Game 11
3 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game 23
4 The Italian Regretted: White plays 5 d3 40

Part Two: Evans Gambit

5 The Evans Gambit Declined 57
6 The Evans Gambit with 5...Jte7 75
7 The Evans Gambit with 5...JLc5 88
8 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5...jLa5 103
9 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...Jk.a5 120

Part Three: Other Lines

10 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines 140

Index of Complete Games 159

 FliiTl
CHAPTER ONE t ± ± tmtmt'

Introduction and the tmm mm

Italian Four Knights

I will assume that the reader has already is attacking the pawn on e4; but surely it
made up his own mind on two of the is more a matter of taste than of beauty
most common opening moves in the last contests at such an early stage in the
500 years of chess history, and jump game. 3...£if6 would take us into the past
straight into the third move with... and my previous book on the Two
1 e4 e5 2 4&f3 £sc6 3 J.c4 Knights Defence, while 3,..Ac5 leads to
Grandmaster Paul Keres wrote about the future and the following pages on the
this move: ‘too calm to give White advan¬ Italian Game, one of the oldest chess
tage.’ This can, of course, be discussed, openings.
but more importandy we should remem¬ 3...J.C5
ber that the opening is not played in or¬
der to gain an advantage, but in order
build the foundation for a later (or occa¬
sionally immediate) victory. A theoretical
plus is just one of many ways to gain a
practical advantage in a game of chess.
Another is familiarity with the different
typical positions. Yet another is simply
knowing the essential theory, or playing a
line with which your opponent is unfamil-

Now let us not get lost in talk, and in¬

stead allow Black to execute his move. In the diagram position White has
Now what about 3...Jlc5 here? Does it many ideas and possibilities, but only two
not have the same defects as 3 Jlc4 - ? give interesting play: 4 c3 with all the
Instead 3...*?if6 looks optically better, as it main lines of the Italian Game, and the

5
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

19th century favourite 4 b4, the Evans fxe3 0-0 10 Wei Jk,e6 11 ‘SicW Wg6 12
Gambit. $3xe6 fxe6 13 Sxf8+ fixf8 14 Wg3 with
In this chapter we shall look at White’s equality, R.Rabiega-A.Yusupov, German
less ambitious option, the Four Knights Championship 2001.
Italian Game. 4...£>f6 5 d3 d6

Game 1
N.Short-A. Aleksandrov
I^rnr 2004

1 e4 e5 2 &f3 ^c6 3 i.c4 Ac5 4

Zhc3
In this position White has also tried
some other moves:
The 4 d4? gambit was refuted a long
time ago with 4...jtxd4! 5 £kd4 £lxd4 6
f4 d5 7 exd5 Wh4+ 8 g3 Wh3 9 Afl Wf5
10 Ad3 e4 and Black was much better, In positions like this you can beat even
H.Fahrni-R.Spielmann, Baden Baden grandmasters. Obviously before this can
1914. happen, they will have to die from bore¬
4 0-0 is completely toothless, and Black dom...
can do as he pleases. Here we will look at 6i.g5
two options: 6 0-0 is another example of the non-
a) 4...^f6 can be met with another silly event we have before us, and then:
gambit: 5 <54?!, but after this risky move a) 6...iLg4?! 7 h3 h5? is a distinctively
White is likely to have to fight for equal¬ bad line (though 7...Jtxf3 8 Wxf3 and
ity, e.g. 5...Axd4 6 ^3xd4 ^3xd4 7 f4 d6 8 White is slighdy better was not the idea) 8
fxe5 dxe5 9 Jtg5 Wei (if 9...Jte6 10 <§la3 hxg4 hxg4 9 <§3g5 and it is hard for Black
Wei 11 c3 i,xc4 12 ®xc4 £>e6 13 AxfS to prove compensation for the piece.
gxf6 14 'A’hl! with compensation for the b) 6...a6 7 h3 ^a5 8 a3 ^xc4 9 dxc4
pawn) 10 £)c3 c6 11 Wd3 Jte6 12 Axe6 Ae6 10 Wd3 &h5 11 £\d5?! (instead 11
*?3xe6 13 Jlxf6 gxf6, and now Black is Bdl with equality) ll...c6 12 <£k3 b5 13
better because the white knight has diffi¬ cxb5 axb5 14 fidl Ac4 and Black is
culties finding its way to f5. slighdy better. T.Luther-F.Borkowski,
b) 4...d6 5 c3 Wf6 (5...Ag4 is a sound Naleczow 1987.
option given by Paul Keres; play might 6.. .h6 7 JLxf6
very well continue 6 d4 exd4 7 Wb3 Wd7 Or 7 J.h4 Ag4 8 h3 l,xf3 9 Wxf3
8 J,xf7+ Wxf7 9 Wxb7 &dl 10 Wxa8 £V14 10 Wdl c6 with equality.
M,xf3 11 gxf3 “S^eS 12 £kl2 ?3xG+ 13 7.. .Wxf6 8 ^d5 Wd8
*53xf3 Wxf3 14 Wd5 Wg4+ with perpetual 8...Wg6? is refuted by 9 4^lh4! (this is
check) 6 d3 h6 7 &c3 %3gel 8 b4 Axe3 9 better then 9 We2 as recommended in

6
 Introduction and the Italian Four Knights

ECO) 9...%5 10 £kc7+ *d8 11 £>xa8 fxe3 Jtg4 21 Bd4 Jte6 22 Jtxe6 Bxe6
#xh4 12 #d2 a6 13 c3 b5 14 JLd5 ±b7 would have kept equality.
15 b4 Aa7 16 a4 and White wins. 19 0-0-0!
9 c3 a6 This is the surprise Black had most
Black can easily drift into a worse posi¬ likely underestimated. White sacrifices a
tion here, e.g. 9...43c7 10 d4 exd4 (or pawn and now Black has problems com¬
10...£lxd5 11 dxc5 £lf4 12 g3 £>h3 13 pleting his development.
cxd6 cxd6 14 ®a4+ i>f8 15 ®b4 and 19...£xe3+ 20 fxe3 Ixe3 21 2hf1
White is slightly better) 11 cxd4 Ab6 12 !e6 22 Axb7 Ba7 23 ±d5 a5 24
£hri>6 axb6 13 0-0 d5 14 exd5 £)xd5 15 Axe6 2xe6 25 2d2
fiel+ Ae6 16 4^e5 0-0 17 Wf3 gives
White some plus, A.Horvath-
A.Aleksandrov, Izmir 2004.
10 d4 Aa7
Better perhaps was 10...exd4! 11 cxd4
i.a7 12 h3 £3e7 13 0-0 £>xd5 14 i.xd5
0-0 15 Bel c6 16 JLb3 Be8 with equality
in B.Macieja-M.Adams, Calvia Olympiad
2004.
11 dxe5 £ixe5 12 £)xe5 dxe5 13
*h5 0-0 14 ®xe5 Se8 15 #f4 «d6
16 #xd6 Sxe4+ 17 £>e3 cxd6
This ending is probably lost for Black.
He has two weaknesses (the d6- and a5-
pawns) and no sensible counterplay.
25.. .a4 26 4>c2 g5?!
In my opinion this just creates another
weakness. The passive 26...'4’f8 27 Bf5
<4,e7 etc. looks slighdy better.
27 2f5 *g7 28 2fd5 Sa6 29 4>d3!
White’s wants to eat the a4-pawn.
29.. .f6 30 4>c4 Bb6 31 Ia5 Ie4+ 32
d?d3 Ig4 33 Bf2 *g6 34 h3 flh4 35
laf5 Hf4 36 B5xf4 gxf4 37 *e4 4>g5
According to ECO this position is 38 Sd2 f5+ 39 <i>f3 2c6 40 a3 Hb6
equal. 41 h4+ <4>xh4?
18 Ad5! The position is lost and Aleksandrov
An unpleasant idea to have to face. commits suicide. Basic life functions
18...2e5? would have been kept operational with
Once out of theory Black makes a mis¬ 41.. .^g6.
take. Instead 18...Be7! 19 0-0-0 JLxe3+ 20 42 *xf4 d5 43 Hd3 1-0
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

position, so it becomes a little more inter¬

Game 2 esting.
B.Larsen-T.Ochsner 7 J.b3
Danish Championship, Pisbjerg 1997 Another practical example: 7 43d5
43xc4 8 dxc4 c6 9 43xf6+ gxf6 10 Jlc3
1 e4 e5 2 £ic3 £sf6 3 £>f3 4ic6 4 Wb6 11 Wd2 Ae6 (if ll...l,xe3 12 fxe3
J=c4 ±,c5 5 d3 d6 6 ±g5 Wxb2 13 0-0 with compensation) 12
I know, I know, why do we have to 0-0-0 0-0-0 with unclear play,
look at this boring line once again? Well, V.Korchnoi-D.Bronstein, USSR Cham¬
although this is all rather harmless and pionship 1952.
toothless, White still managed to win our 7.. .C6 8 0-0
main games; and I also want to find space White can also strike immediately in
to include a little more theory: the centre with 8 d4. Then after 8...43xb3
a) 6 jte3 J,b6 (6...4M4!? gives interest¬ 9 axb3 exd4 10 43xd4 h6 11 Ah4 0-0 12
ing play, as after 7 Jtxd4 exd4 8 43a4 0-0 g5 13 i.g3 Se8 14 Sel d5 15 e5 43e4
jkb4+ 9 c3 dxc3 10 bxc3 Aa5 11 0-0 0-0 16 Wd3, as in A.Morozevich-
Black stands well) 7 Wd2 Ae6 8 J,b5 0-0 Kir.Georgiev, Tilburg 1994, Black should
9 ±xc6 bxc6 10 0-0 4id7 11 d4 f6 12 h3 play 16...43xg3! 17 hxg3 Wc7 with the
We8 with equality. advantage, instead of 16..JLxd4?! 17
b) 6 43a4 Ab6 7 c3 ±e6 8 l,b5 0-0 9 Wxd4 if5 18 43xe4 Axe4 19 flxa7 flxa7
J=xc6 bxc6 10 J.g5 Wei 11 0-0 h6 12 20 Wxa7 JLxc2 21 Wxb7 when it would
jth4 Jtc8!. Black shrewdly avoids prob¬ be White who is better.
lems on the h4-e8 diagonal. Now after 13 8.. .0-0 9 1he2 33xb3
h3 We6 he had equality in Y.Rantanen- Or 9...J.g4 10 43g3 h6 11 Ae3 with
Y.Razuvaev, Helsinki 1984. equality.
c) 6 h3 J=e6 7 43d5 h6 with equality. 10 axb3 h6 11 ±e3 ±b6 12 <§3g3
6...^a5 Jte 6

This is also good for Black. And more Black is slowly getting into trouble
importantly, it changes the nature of the against his legendary opponent. Here
 Introduction and the Italian Four Knights

12...He8! guaranteed equality, thanks to hook.

the pressure against the e4-pawn. 19...Be7 20 ^df5+!
13*d2*h7?!
Black is apparently afraid of a sacrifice
on h6, but I cannot see how that would
ever work. Black can always play ...<?ig4 in
the end. Therefore 13...fie8!? 14 Jlxb6
#xb6 15 d4 jtg4 16 dxe5 dxe5 17 Wc3
J,xf3 18 #xf3 Wb4 with equality was
better.
14 J,xb6 #xb6 15 d4 exd4 16 £>xd4

20.. .£xf5
The tactical justification for the knight
sacrifice was 20...gxf5? 21 exf5 #c5 22 b4
#c4 23 fxe6 Ixe6 24 £)f5+ i>g8 25 b3
#b5 26 #f4 and White wins.
21 exf5 Iae8 22 Ixe7 Ixe7 23 fxg6
fxg6 24 h5! £ixh5 25 #c3+ 4>h7 26
£ixh5 gxh5 27 Ixd6 #b5 28 Bxh6+
*xh6 29 #f6+ <4>h7 30 #xe7+ *g6
16...Sfe8?! 31 We3
Black is apparendy too complacent, In the end material superiority decides.
while it was time to do something to stay 31.. .#85 32 &h2 #a1 33 We6+ 4?g7
in the game; e.g. 16...d5!? 17 Wd3 ^>h8 18 34 #d7+ *f8 35 #c8+ *e7 36
e5 4j3d7 19 f4 f6! with unclear play. #xb7+ *d6 37 #b4+ *d5 38 #c4+
17 Sfel g6? *d6 39 #d4+ *c7 40 b4 *b7 41 c4
This completely unnecessarily creates a Wcl 42 b5 cxb5 43 #d7+ *b6 44
weakness. 17...d5 was better, when White #xb5+ *c7 45 Wc5+ *b7 46 b4
can reply 18 e5 <§M7 19 ’#14 with the #f4+ 47 g3 #g4 48 b5 We2 49
initiative. #d5+ *b8 50 <4>g2 #e8 51 Wd3
18 Uadi *g7 19 h4! *c7 52 #e3 Wa8+ 53 f3 a6 54 bxa6
A typical move, using the g-pawn as a 1-0

9
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Summary
We have seen in the notes to the two games above that the Italian Four Knights is
theoretically completely harmless. At the same time we have also seen that stronger
players can outplay their opponents by simple means, if these opponents have little to
show on the day. But then we can lose against the London System as well. To batde
these lines it is more important to be in good form, than to know theoretical ideas and
moves.

1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £ic6 3 !.c4 !,c5 (D) 4 £ic3 (D)

4 d4 - see Game 1
4 0-0 - see Game 1
4...£lf6 5 d3 d6 6 £.g5 (D)
6.. .h6 - Game 1
Game 2
6.. .*Siia5 —

10
 CHAPTER TWO |
First Steps in the
Italian Game

In this chapter we will take a first glance

at the position after 1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 £>c6 Game 3
3 Jkc4 £.c5 4 c3 A. AlekhineS .T arrasch
This is the most interesting and strong¬ Mannheim 1914
est move; White is building up to enforce
5 d4, which will give him the superiority 1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £>c6 3 Ac4 &c5 4 c3
in the centre. This is a strategically more
aggressive strategy than the symmetry of
the previous chapter, and the source from
which the need for real opening theory
on the Italian Game stems.
Black can meet 4 c3 is a variety of
ways, where 4...<§Tf6 is the strongest. Ac¬
cording to current theory Black can also
equalise with 4..Mel, but I think this is
less than obviously certain. Actually, in
the games below, I will go as far as to
claim an advantage for White in all lines.
In this chapter we shall also have a
quick look at a line which, in grandmaster According to standard theory this
play, achieves only equality, but is suc¬ move leads to equality. In my opinion
cessful lower down. After 4 c3 <53 f6 5 d4 White is at least slightly better. Black has
exd4 6 e5 many games have continued also tried some alternative methods of
with moves other than the absolutely es¬ solving his opening problems at this early
sential 6...d5!, which equalises at once. stage, other than the sane development of
But first let us examine 4...'ffe7. his knight. Though they have little theo-
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

retical importance, it would be wrong not 5.. .Jb6

to have a glance at them. Black cannot give up the centre with
a) 4...®f6?! was once a frequent visitor 5.. .exd4?!. Strategically it is a catastrophe,
to international tournaments, but these and it does not work out tactically either,
days we know that White can more or after the energetic 6 0-0! when we should
less refute it brutally with 5 d4! Jlb6 (if look at the following lines:
5...exd4P! 6 e5 Wg6 7 cxd4 Jtb4+ 8 4lc3 a) 6...dxc3 7 4tlxc3 d6 8 S3d5 Wd8 9
and White is much better as the g2-pawn b4! Jtxb4 10 4l3xb4 %3xb4 11 Wb3 and
is untouchable, i.e. 8..Mxg2? 9 figl Wh3 White is much better.
10 jLxf7+! and Black is in real trouble) 6 b) 6...4le5 7 cxd4 £lxc4 (or 7.,.<§3xf3+
0-0 h6 7 a4 a6 8 dxe5 £>xe5 9 £>xe5 8 gxf3 Jk,b6 9 4tk3 c6 10 Bel with a dear
#xe5 10 WB £>f6 11 a5 J..a7 12 Bel and advantage) 8 #c2! J.b6 9 Wxc4 d6 10
White has a clear advantage according to £k3 and White is better.
Max Euwe. 6 0-0
b) 4...f5P! looks very dubious. White 6 Ag5!P is quite a tricky move, which
surely has a lot of sound options here, but should probably be met with the anti-
instead of looking for an refutation, I will structural 6...f6!P. I have doubts about
recommend the simple 5 d3, when play Black’s prospects after 6...S3f6, when I
can continue 5...<£lf6 6 b4 jk.b6 7 a4 a6 would be quite tempted to go for the fol¬
(7...fxe4? 8 dxe4 <2lxe4 9 0-0 a5 10 Wd5 lowing pawn sacrifice, in order to get su¬
<SM6 11 <S3xe5 with a terrible attack) 8 0-0 preme control over the light squares in
d6 9 4lbd2 and White is much better, as the centre: 7 d5 ‘SMS 8 d6 cxd6 (Black
Black has problems with his king. cannot stand the exchange of queens, as
c) 4...d6 5 d4 exd4 has been played his pawn structure is a total ruin after
once in a while as well. Now after 6 cxd4 8.. .Wxd6P! 9 #xd6 cxd6 10 ±xi6 gxf6,
±b4+ 7 £>c3 ±g4 8 0-0 «U7 9 d5 <SM8 when 11 'SUM d5 12 J.xd5 gives White a
10 h3 ±h5 11 1U4 ±xc3 12 Wxc3 White clear advantage) 9 ‘Sla3
is slighdy better according to ECO.
5 d4

and here we should probably look at

the two lines separately:

12
 First Steps in the Italian Game

a) 9...a6 10 At!5 Ae6 11 Ac4 1x7 12 A.Tzermiadianos-M.Lazic, Kavala 1996.

Ae3 and White is just much better. b) 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 b3 Ae6 13 We2
b) 9...Jtxf2+ 10 *e2! d5 (I think this 0-0 14 jta3 and White is slightly better,
might be forced; after 10...Jtc5 11 Ah4 A.Becker-C.Ahues, Munich Olympiad
Ae6 12 Af5 *f8 13 Axf6 gxf6 14 b4 1936.
Af4+ 15 Afd White is much better) 11 So I have some confidence that White
Wxd5 Axd5 12 Axe7 4>xe7 13 Axd5 is seriously fighting for an advantage here,
Ac5 14 b4 Ad6 15 Ac4 f6 16 Ae3 and or let us say that Black is struggling to
White has very good compensation for equalise, and will probably have to come
the pawn. up with something else on move 9, but I
6.. .d6 am not really aware of what it would be.
As I said, I think this position is slightly 7...a6 8 Ae3
better for White.
7 a4
This is not too testing of course. In¬
stead I will here risk my neck and dubious
reputation on the underestimated 7 d5!,
claiming it will guarantee White a small
advantage after 7...Ad8 8 Ad3 Af6 9
Abd2 c6 (Black should of course avoid
9.. .Ah5? 10 Axe5 Wxe5 when 11 Ac4
wins) 10 Ac4 1x7

8...J.g4?!
I do not see a great future for the
bishop on g4. Instead I would recom¬
mend leaving the square vacant for the
knight. After 8...Af6 9 Abd2 Ag4 10
We2 Axe3 11 fxe3 0-0 12 Uf2 the posi¬
tion is more or less equal.
9 d5 Ab8 10 a5 Axe3 11 fxe3 Af6
12 Abd2 Abd7 13 Wei Ac5 14
#b1!
and now White has two interesting White is not ashamed of regretting the
possibilities to consider: placement of the queen, as Black’s knight
a) 11 lc2!P h6 12 Ae3 0-0 13 h3 cxd5 will shortly be driven back to the stables
14 exd5 Ah7 15 Af5 «f6 16 Wd3 lxf5 with a stick. After something stupid like
17 fcf5 #xf5 18 AxfS g6 19 Ac2 <4>g7 14 Wg3?! h5! Black is better because of
20 Ah2 f5 21 Idl Af6 22 Afl Af7 23 the weakness of the e4-pawn. One line
c4 and White was slightly better in goes 15 Ag5 h4 16 Wf2 h3 17 g3 flh5 18

13
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

b4 Sxg5 19 bxc5 dxc5 and Black is clearly eventually ending up at d4. Though there
better. is nothing wrong with this, it seems quite
logical also to consider going there di¬
rectly. After 20 *Sid4 4de5 21 Sf4! White
is much better (but after 21 JsLb.3 Ad7 22
%e2 Hc8 Black would be able to keep the
position together), e.g. 21...<i?d8 (21...0-0?
22 Wh4 and White wins) 22 #£2 <?deg4
23 We2 g5 24 flffl WcS 25 g3 etc.
20.. .h6 21 £sh3
Here White should not fall for 21
Wh4?? 4?3h7 and Black wins.
21.. .We5 22 Hcl <?3g4 23 £sf4 g5 24
h3 <Slgf6 25 £se2
14.. .Ac8?! The white knight is getting to the end
Black obviously has trouble getting of its long journey, and will land on d4
something useful out of his bishop. This and exploit the recent weakening of the
total retreat, however, is not the best way £5-square. Now Black should have util¬
to deal with the issue. After the more re¬ ised the weaknesses he has created on the
spectful 14...0-0 it is true that 15 b4 4kd7 kingside to obtain counterplay. Instead he
16 Ad3 Sfe8 17 c4 gives White better fell pray to materialism.
play, but Black can still hold the position. 25.. .£>xd5?
15 b4 £icd7 16 £sh4! g6 Better was 25...g4, though after 26 Wg3
This weakness is hard to avoid. After We7 27 £>d4 £>e5 28 hxg4 Axg4 29 £)f5
16.. .6g4 17 £>f5 Wg5 18 &f3 White is Axf5 30 Sxf5 Ug8 31 Wff4 White has a
better. clear advantage.
17 Wei c6 18 £shf3 cxd5 19 exd5 e4 26 ±xd5 Wxd5 27 £id4

20 4ig5!? 27...We5?
The knight begins a long journey. This is nothing but a stupid blunder.

14
 First Steps in the Italian Game

Black should have played 27...<Sif8 28 lence was probably not meant to end in
W(2 Hh7 29 £>£5 Wxf5 30 «W5 ±x£5 31 the way it did. Sounder was something
11x15 and White is much better. like 8...0-0 9 a4 a6 10 £la3, and here we
28 £c4 #d5 29 £f5 Af8 should take a short look at the position
with Black and try to be reasonable.
a) 10...‘4)h8P! 11 £fc2 £3g8P! 12 b4 f6
13 £le3 left White much better in
W.Heidenfeld-M.Euwe, J ohannesburg
1955. Black can improve with ll...exd4
12 cxd4 h6, but after 13 e5 White still has
the advantage.
b) 10...exd4 11 cxd4 ®d7 does not
look too appetising if we consider it as a
position to reach when we chose our 4th
move, but here it is appropriate. After
simple moves like 12 Jta2 He8 13 itbl
30 £fxd6 White is slightly better.
Now White wins.
30...Sh7 31 Idl *c6 32 fld4 b6 33
axb6 ±b7 34 £>a5 1-0

Game 4
D.Tyomkin-I.Zugic
Montreal2004

The following game shows another

way to battle for the advantage against
4.. .'Bre7, and seems very convincing. With
simple play White breaks through on the
queenside before Black can create any 9 b4!
kind of counterplay on the kingside. White is playing very fast on the
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £c6 3 !,c4 Ac5 4 0-0 queenside and his initiative goes as
d6 5 c3 We7 6 d4 ±b6 7 h3 smoothly as a warm knife through butter.
Please note that 4 0-0 is principally harm¬ This means that Black will have to defend
less, and that 4 c3 We7 5 d4 J,b6 6 0-0 and does not have time to attack himself
d6 7 h3 is the more critical move order, with ...g7-g5.
with which we would reach this position. Another option here was 9 a4 a6 10
7.. .£f6 8He1 h6 Jle3, but then Black has some time on
This is the beginning of an overopti- his hands and can continue with 10...g5
mistic plan. Black apparently is in a very 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 jLxbti cxb6 13 4tih2
aggressive mood, but his taste for vio¬ iLe6 with equality according to Unzicker.

15
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

9.. .a6 10 a4 g5?! somewhat better.

Black is not really attuned into the finer 13.. .£)d7
details of the position. His position was The idea behind White’s last (prophy¬
still more or less sound if he had played lactic) move is seen when Black tries to
more calmly. After the sounder 10...0-0 carry out his desired 13...g4. Now the
11 Ao3 £kl7 12 b5 £k5 13 £.a2 Wff6 14 initiative explodes with 14 <5)xe5! gxh3 15
Wd3 Be8 15 <511x12 White was only bxa6 bxa6 16 Wa4+ 5ld7 17 5lc6 ®h4 18
slighdy better in E.Torre-R.Ekstroem, g3 Sg8 19 4>h2 Wf6 20 Ia2 and White is
Lugano 1989. much better.
11 a5 Aa7 12b5 £\d8 14 dxe5
It was probably around here that Black I really enjoy watching the simple, yet
started to come to his senses; but it is strong exploitation of White’s advantage
already too late to find a decent position. in this game. I find it quite logical that
After the apparently logical 12...axb5 13 White should open the position for his
Jtxb5 J.d7, White can break through on pieces here, where he is ahead in devel¬
the queenside with 14 a6!, and on opment. Nevertheless, after something
14.. .bxa6 15 Ixa6 5)b8 16 J,xd7+ '#xd7 like 14 b6 J.b8 15 Wa4 c6 16 £)bd2
17 Sa3 White has a brilliant initiative on White is also better.
the queenside, while Black’s attack still 14.. .£>xe5 15 ^xe5 #xe5 16 b6 Ab8
has to develop beyond biting his finger at
White.
13 i,a3!

White has managed to reduce the black

pieces to chickens pushed against a wall,
and now only needs to activate his queen¬
The breakthrough on the queenside in side to convert his advantage. With his
this game is very instructive. White could next six moves White manages to finish
have gained a good position with simple his development and target the key weak¬
moves like 13 bxa6!? bxa6 14 Wd3, but nesses in the black position. To many
this would give Black time to execute his amateurs these moves might seem simple,
own plan, and after 14...g4 15 hxg4 <5lxg4 but to replicate these simple moves in
16 fle2 Ig8 17 <511x12 White is only practice would be quite difficult, even for

16
 First Steps in the Italian Game

experienced players. 32 #xg5 hxg5 33 2d6 £la5 34 Hed3

17 bxc7! J,c4 35 Bg3 Bg8 36 ±d8 g4 37
This is better then the artistic 17 Acl hxg4 2g6 38 Af6 4e6 39 g5 2g8 40
ffg8 18 ±,e3 g4 19 h4 l.e6 20 bxc7 l.xc7 Sgd3 £>c4 1-0
21 ±d5 even though this also leaves
White with a big advantage. Game 5
17.. .Jlxc7 18 <£kl2! 0-6 E.Sveshnikov-R.Dautov
Black finally decides to do something Pm.sk 1986
about his king. Although it would not
have been out of style to end the game 1 e4 e5 2 £if3 ^c6 3 Ac4 J.c5 4 c3
with something silly like 18..Jtxa5? 19 £rf6 5 d4 exd4 6 e5
£lf3 ®xc3 20 Wxd6 and White wins.
19 J,d5 2e8 20 -Sic4 #f6 21 Se3!
A,d7 22 #f3!
This is stronger than 22 WhS, although
after the following piece of analysis,
22.. .1.b5 23 Sb8 24 If3 %7 25
Bel 26 c4 i.c6 27 Ab2 Wg6 28
Wxg6+ fxg6 29 Sf6 Axd5 30 cxd5 <?3f4
31 Ad4, we can conclude that White is
much better too.
22.. JTg6
Also after 22...*rxf3 23 Sxf3 will Black
lose the d6-pawn. As mentioned above, this is hardly
dangerous for Black if he knows what
he’s doing. The important point here is
that Black is forced to counter-strike in
the centre without hesitation.
6.. .d5! 7Ab5 4le4 8 cxd4
Now Black has three possibilities.
8.. .1.b6 and 8..ile7 are considered here,
while 8...JLb4+ is investigated in the next
game.
8.. .jtb6
8...ite7 might look a little passive at
first sight, but it is a completely viable
23 Wg3 Aic6 24 J.xd6 possibility. Then 9 4^c3 0-0 10 Jle3!?
And that’s all folks! (this appears to be better than 10 Jld3 f5
24...1,d8 25 <?3b6 J.xb6 26 axb6 11 exf6 *§3xf6 12 3ie3 Aib4 13 Jlh l Aigd
Hac8 27 Ac7 He6 28 ±xe6 J.xe6 29 with counterplay, W.Steinitz-Em.Lasker,
Bdl Ah7 30 f4 gxf4 31 fcf4 %5 New York match 1894) 10...f5 11 exf6

7 7
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

43xf6 12 ^he5 was seen in the recent not guaranteed to succeed. A possible
game B.Macieja-C.Garcia Moreno, Span¬ continuation is 20...'§3e6 21 h6 g6 22 flh5
ish League 2004. Now, instead of Bae8 23 Be5 £k!8 24 Bxe8 Ixe8 25 #d7
12.. .4Lb8 as played, I would suggest #17 etc.
12.. .Wd6! 13 Af4 £id8 14 0-0 £>e6 15 However, White’s play can be greatly
Jie3 a6 16 $Le2 c5 with counterplay as an improved. After 15 #e2! <§3h4 16 flhgl
improvement. White has real threats coming up on the
9£lc3 kingside, and Black will not be able to
9 a4?! a5 10 J.e3 0-0 11 J,xc6 bxc6 12 free himself as easily as in the other line.
0-0 was strategically dubious, and after It is hard to make a final conclusion, but
12.. .f5 13 exf6 #xf6 Black is at least ‘with compensation’ is not an unfair
equal, A.Biro-P.Lukacs, Budapest 1985. evaluation.
9.. .0-0 10...bxc6 11 J,e3?!
White is trying to play against the
bishop on b6, but it was better simply to
continue 11 0-0 JLg4 12 Bel with equal¬
ity.

10 l.xc6
This exchange appears quite risky. It is
easy to end in a position where White is
under attack from the dynamic duo, aka
Black’s bishop pair.
There is litde need to exchange on c6 This does not really achieve anything.
immediately. White would be better off Here Black had the chance to annoy the
playing 10 Jte3!?, when play is likely to bishop on e3, or if White wants to avoid
continue 10...jtg4 11 #c2 JLxf3 12 gxf3 this, he will have to give up a lot of his
£}g5 13 iLxcti bxc6 14 0-0-0 £>x£3, and presence in the centre. After ll...f5! 12
now GM Sveshnikov continues his analy¬ exf6 #xf6. Black is just better. Strong
sis with 15 #f5 &h4 16 #g4 43g6 17 h4 grandmasters have tried this out in two
f5 18 exf6 #xf6 19 h5 £tf4 20 Bh4 recent games:
where he claims that White has full com¬ a) 13 #b3 %514 &)c5 #xg2 15 0-0-0
pensation for the pawn. Actually I fear 43xf2 16 Bhgl <$1x01 17 fixg2 *53x63 18
that White is fighting for a draw, and is Be2 Axd4 19 43xc6 Ab6 20 43xd5 Bfl+

18
 First Steps in the Italian Game

21 *d2 Bdl+ 22 *c3 Scl+ 23 <&>d2 \6..Me7 17 fixd5 Bad8 18 Ihdl i.xf2
Bc2+ 24 i’el Bxe2+ 25 '4>xe2 Jla6+ with 19 f4 where White is also better.
a dangerous initiative, J.Rowson- 17 #a5 ixf2 18 Wxd5 We6 19 4>b1
I.Sokolov, Selfoss 2003. White would, of course, not mind en¬
b) 13 &xe4 dxe4 14 £kl2 Aa6! 15 tering the endgame. The black pieces
4lxe4 Aa5+ 16 %3c3 iLxc3+ 17 bxc3 ®g6 have difficulties working together; his
and again Black had a deadly initiative in bishop especially is lacking a useful di¬
B.Macieja-G.Vescovi, Bermuda 2004. agonal. Maybe Black has more chances in
12«a4 c5?! the endgame, but it is understandable that
Black is entering a quagmire of bad tac¬ he chooses to avoid it, even though this is
tics. 12...±xf3 was better, although after probably mistaken.
13 gx£3 &xc3 14 bxc3 We8 15 f4 Wc6 16 19...fiac8 20 Shfl ±b6 21 f4 Wf5+
Bgl Bae8 17 #c2 th3 18 0-0-0! White After the better try 21...®xd5 22 “SlxdS
has some initiative, because of the weak Bfe8 23 2f3 c6 24 ^xb6! (24 £k3 Scd8
black bishop on b6. 25 Bfd3 Bxd3 26 Bxd3 f6 would allow
13 dxc5 ±xf3 Black to gain counterplay) 24...axb6 25
If 13...i.xc5?? 14 i.xc5 <£>xc5 15 Wxg4 Bd6 White still has some winning
and White wins. chances. His advantage is not necessarily
14 gxf3 £sxc5 15 J.xc5 ixc5 that great, but it is a firm and stable supe¬
riority, that in practice will cost Black a
very tough defence in return for the draw.
22 *a1 h6 23 £>• 4

16 0-0-0!
Now Black has some problems with
the d-pawn and also, less obviously, with
his king, as the open g-file can become an White is just much better here.
engine for a dangerous white attack. 23.. .d?h7 24 £3g3 #g4 25 a3 #h3 26
16 #e8 We4+ *h8 27 f5 c6 28 f6 g6 29 If4
Black has an unpleasant choice here. 2cd8 30 fid6 Wxh2 31 2h4 #g1 +
He can play the text move, or 16...d4 17 32 <i?a2 #e3 33 thl
<?3e4 J.b6 18 Bhgl Wh4 19 Bg4 when 33 Bxc6!? is also possible, as after
White has an unpleasant attack, or 33.. .Bfe8 34 thl <^h7 35 Bc2! White

19
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

wins. The ideas are 35...flxe5 36 He2 or £lbd2 Jld7 10 0-0 0-0 and now at least
35.. Mg5 36 flch2 jle3 37 $3e4. In both two moves in his games:
cases White wins. a) 11 4^xe4 dxe4 12 $3gS 4t3xe5 13
33.. .<4>h7 34 -Sie4 Bh8 35 Sxc6?! «a4 Axb5 14 'tfxb5 $3d3 15 jLe3 #e7
Simpler was 35 Hxd8! Jtxd8 36 e6 fxe6 16 B c6 17 Wc4 b5! and Black is at least
37 ®dl and White wins. equal, E.Sveshnikov-M.Krasenkow, Vil¬
35.. .h5 36 e6 *h6 37 Bc3 We2 38 nius 1997.
e7 Idl 39 *h2 Wxh2 40 Bxh2 Bel b) 11 ±d3 ±f5 12 Wc2 ±xd2 13
41 *53d6 Bb8 42 $3x17+ 4>h7 43 Bc6 J.xd2 J,g6?! 14 1x3 '#'e7 15 flael gave
I,d4 44^g5+ 1-0 White a slightly advantage in
E.Sveshnikov-S.Azarov, Minsk 2000, but
Game 6 surely he realised that it was easy for
E.Sveshnikov-H.Stefansson Black to improve, as he deviated in the
Uepaya (rapid) 2004 current game. The improvement could be
13.. .1Lg4! 14 Axe4 dxe4 15 Wxe4 ±xf3
If you compare the dates of this game 16 WxB #xd4 17 £c3 Wc4 with equal¬
with the previous one, you will see that ity.
Grandmaster Sveshnikov has had a last¬ 2.. .$3x62 10 ±xc6+ bxc6 11 £3bxd2
ing passion for this rather harmless line. c5
1 e4 e5 2 $}f3 £>c6 3 i.c4 A,c5 4 c3
&f6 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 d5 7 i.b5 £>e4 8
cxd4 ±b4+!?

12 a3
12 dxc5 has been played, but I prefer
not to go into the games and instead pre¬
This simple move (patzer sees a check, sent 12...0-0!, which is a new idea. (Ok,
patzer plays a check) gives Black a sound ok, here is some old stuff, but then you
and rather solid game. have to eat your greens! 12...Jtxc5 13
9 Jld2 Wc2 Ab6 14 fh6+ fU7 15 1^8 0-0 16
White has no road leading to an advan¬ lei c5 17 Wb8 J.a6 18 Hd6 Wb5 19
tage. Sveshnikov has had to realise this in &dl Wt2+ 20 i4>c2 Wd3+ with equality
his practical games, where he also tried 9 according to Macieja, or 14...Ad? 15

20
 First Steps in the Italian Game

Wxd5 0-0 16 0-0 J,e6 17 «c6 »d3 with gxf3 0-0. Here White went wrong with 16
some compensation) 13 ’#a4 Sb8 14 0-0 c6?, as after 16...fle8 17 f4. Black should
Axc5 15 <?lb3 Ab6 16 flfdl c5 and as I deviate from B.Macieja-A.Aleksandrov,
see it Black is slightly better. European Team Championship 2003,
12...iLxd2+ 13 #xd2 with 17...'8kl6 18 0-0-0 Wxc6+ 19 ‘4’bl
Sab8 and be slightly better. If instead 16
0-0-0 »e7! 17 W&4 Iab8 18 Sd2 Sb5
and Black has counterplay.
14 0-0 flb8!
Black keeps an eye on the b2-pawn,
which gives him good counterplay.
15 Hfel 0-0 16 »c2 g6 17 &d2
1^5! 18 He3 *g4 19 #c3 c5 20 ®>f3
cxd4 21 £>xd4 Hb6

13...c4!
This move might seem surprising, but it
gives Black easy equality. Optically it looks
as if the pawn is placed on a wrong col¬
oured square, given Black’s light-squared
bishop, but if we look slightly further than
automatic dogmatism, we will see that the
pawns will actually support the bishop
rather than restrict it. Also, the f3-knight
was probably hoping to occupy one of the 22 Sael
dark squares in the centre, and this is now Or 22 b4 cxb3 23 £3xb3 Ae6 24 4hd4
nothing but a dream. fifb8 with equality.
One practical example saw the reason¬ 22...Ae6 23 h3 *h4 24 Sdl 2fb8 25
able alternative 13...jk,g4 14 dxc5 Jtxf3 15 2e2 28b7 'A-'A

21
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Summary
To conclude quickly on the material in this chapter: after 4 c3 then 4...We7 has a good
reputation, but probably unjustly. Games 3 and 4 contain some ideas leading to an ad¬
vantage for White, which should be of practical importance to anyone playing the Ital¬
ian Game.
In the last two games of the chapter we investigated Sveshnikov’s pet line with 6 e5,
which is theoretically quite harmless. Obviously the Russian grandmaster plays this be¬
cause he feels that he gets good practical chances, but against a well-prepared opponent
this is probably not the case. But then again, how many people are prepared for even-
obscure line after 1 e4 e5 - ? Not many I suppose...

1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £)c6 3 i.c4 Ac5 4 c3 (D) £>f6

4.. Me7 5 d4 i.b6 6 0-0 d6 (D)
7 a4 - Game 3
7 h3 - Game 4
5 d4 exd4 6 e5 d5 7 J.b5 £ie4 8 cxd4 (D)
8.. JLb6 - Game 5
8.. .jLb4+ — Game 6

H JLWtf 4E
mtntmmx
H i ® 4H
in m±m±
mm »m
Ippipaf
m In Am Am' m in m hi
H§ (S §8 ft 1H ■
m£m±m
ipi
Am *
m
§§ gg Ws.£>M. §g Si §§§§§§ 4^
tm'm mm ft! '■ tlfS i'll '■ 'Hill
mammn et&a&Bgs EfcONtfS US
4 c3 6...d6 8 cxd4

22
 CHAPTER THREE ■se
m i
jl

The Moller Attack and the m m mm

Classical Italian Game mn

1 e4 e5 2 &f3 £lc6 3 ±c4 M.c5 4 c3 for White. Van der Doel’s weak play in
$f6 5 d4 exd4 Game 9 failed to exploit the pay-offs of
In this chapter we will look at the posi¬ this tactic, but the idea still works.
tions arising after 1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £k6 3 In Game 11 we shall look at another
Ac4 jLc5 4 c3 <§3f6 5 d4 exd4. In the first dubious gambit, 6 0-0, which can be met
two games we examine the Moller Attack either by 6...4'3xe4 with simple equality (or
6 cxd4 jk.b4+ 7 £te3?!. This gambit is a little more), and the greedy 6...dxc3!P,
over a hundred years old and is one of which in many sources is referred to as
those lovely antiques which are fragile bad, but actually gives Black reasonable
and break into pieces if you treat them a chances.
little bit harshly. In this chapter we shall
see that Black equalises easily in Game 7, Game 7
where White afterwards fail to prove Comp. Fritz 6-V.Anand
equality; and in Game 8 we shall see the Man vs. Machine, Frankfurt (rapid) 1999
official refutation 13...h6! (but also
13...0-0, which seems to lead to a draw by 1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 4ic6 3 d4
force). Surely the Moller Attack is having This game has a slightly unusual move
tough times in this computer age. order. Normally we reach the position at
In Games 9 and 10 we shall examine 7 move 5 by 3 itc4 JLc5 4 c3 £)f6 5 d4. By
Jtd2, which is every bit as harmless as it the way, 5 d4 is the most logical move
looks. We will see that Black can force here, since 5 0-0 leaves White struggling
equality, but then will have to allow White to make sense of his position after the
the chance of a draw by repetition; or equalising 5...£)xe4. And 5 b4 does not
Black can accept a slightly worse position, look right either, as it leads to a position
but play for a win. For tactical reasons from the Evans Gambit, which is not
such a line can at times prove reasonable particularly good for White. This leaves

23
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

only 5 d3 as a serious alternative, which is tournament in this line, investigating

of practical value, though not really dan¬ White’s attacking chances. Now we know
gerous for Black. We will examine this that 7 'A’fl is somewhat dubious, and that
move in the next chapter. with logical play Black should be able to
3.. .exd4 4 Ac4 Ac5 5 c3 £>f6 get a good opening. Let’s look at two
These lines might look very sharp and typical options:
dangerous, but the reality is that the forc¬ a) 7...4^xe4?! might seem tempting, but
ing nature of the position quite often all White’s play is based on this over-
leads them into a draw... optimistic move. Taking die pawn is un¬
6 cxd4 JLb4+ necessarily risky, and probably even plain
This check is highly logical, and other bad. White can now seize the initiative by
moves are simply bad. For example: simple means: 8 d5 <5ie7 9 #d4 4t3f6 10
6.. .±b6? 7 d5 £le7 8 e5 £)g4 9 d6 cxd6 Jtg5 £)g6 11 £\bd2 h6 12 Eel+ <Af8 13
10 exd6 <§3c6 11 ±g5 £>f6 12 0-0 and jtd3 JLe7? (though 13...iLxd2 14 J,xd2
White is much better. with a clear advantage to White was not
particularly attractive either) 14 Jlxg6!
hxg5 15 4le5 and White was winning in
F.Marshall-A.Burn, Ostend 1905.
b) The logical reaction so often in
these classical positions is to strike in the
centre. Here 7...d5! 8 exd5 ‘SWdS

The main position. White has two sen¬

sible moves here.
7 5ic3?!
Objectively speaking, this move is
weak; but then objectivity has little to do
with the ways of the world, who is elected
president in the US, who is selected for is at least slightly better for Black, e.g. 9
junior tournaments, and how an egg 4k3 JLc6 10 We2 JLxc3 11 bxc3 4lxc3
should be prepared... 7 £lc3 is dangerous 12 Wei £kl5 13 &a3 a6 14 Icl Wd7 and
in practice, if Black is not well prepared the two bishops are insufficient
for it. compensation for the pawn, Bartmansky-
White’s third option, 7 ATI?!, is known Batik, correspondence 1910.
as the Krakow Variation. In 1909, chess 7...'Sixe4 8 0-0 ±xc3
players from Krakow played a thematic Black needs to go directly for a refuta-

24
 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game

tion of the Moller, or he will quickly end 16 43xc4 gives White compensation for
up in trouble. the pawn) 14 jtxe7 (4>xe7 15 #c2 f6 16
Here 8...0-0? is weak because of 9 d5 43g5! (White must play energetically to
Jlxc3 10 bxc3 *5le7 11 flel ^3f6 12 d6! keep the balance) 16...fxg5 17 He 5 #xd4
and White is much better. 18 lael fiae8 19 flxe6+ <4>d7 20 Bdl
S.-.^xcS is possible though, and then 9 #xdl+ 21 #xdl+ *xe6 22 #g4+ <4>f6
bxc3 leaves us with a branching: 23 h4 gxh4 24 #xh4+ 4>g6 25 %4+ *f6
26 #f4+ ifrgti with a draw in O.Gadia-
J.De Souza Mendes, Brazilian Champion¬
ship 1961.
9 d5!?

a) 9.JLxc3 10 Aa3! d5! (but not

10...d6? 11 Bel Aa5 12 #a4 a6 13 ±d5
±b6 14 Ixc6! ±67 15 flel+ &fB 16
Hxd6 and White wins according to Keres;
or if 10...#f6?! 11 Bel i.b4 12 J.xb4 This is Moller’s idea; invented in 1898.
£lxb4 13 flel+ ^d8 14 Wd2 and White After the rather poindess 9 bxc3P! d5
is just better) 11 Ab5 Axal 12 2,el+ Black has a perfect game. Against Lasker,
jte6 13 #a4 Sc8 14 ^ie5 (White can in their 1896 return match, Steinitz tried
easily go wrong here, e.g. 14 Sxe6+? fxe6 to play without pieces. He also played
15 4he5 #d6! 16 Axc6+ bxc6 17 jiLxdti without any hint of success or indication
cxd6 18 4Lxc6 fic7 and Black wins, while that he was a World Champion. Of
after 14 fixal?! f6! White has problems to course he was also in the later part of his
prove compensation) 14...#f6 15 Axc6+ life and surely without the energy of his
(if 15 flxal ld7 16 Sel $d8 17 <53xc6+ younger years. The game continued 10
bxc6 18 J.e7+ Wxe7 19 2xe7 &xe7 20 Jla3? dxc4 11 lei f5 12 £ld2 <&f7 13
Jlxc6 JL\c6 21 #xc6 and White must $3xe4 fxe4 14 Sxe4 #f6 and White does
now fight for a draw) 15...bxc6 16 ‘$3xc6 not have any form of compensation for
M,c3 17 l5lxa7+ idS 18 £lc6+ with per¬ the piece, W.Steinitz lim.Lasker, Moscow
petual check. match 1896.
b) 9...d5! is even simpler. After 10 cxb4 9...4tie5
dxc4 11 Sel+ £)e7 12 #e2 Ae6 13 Ag5 This variation is not as well known in
#05 (13...c6 14 £\c5 #d5 15 Axe7 4>xe7 the West as 9...jtf6 (as seen in the next

25
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

game). Nevertheless, it is quite safe and #xa5 is more interesting. In my opinion.

gives Black a very slight edge without any White has some advantage here. Black
risk at all. For those happy with a superior has a pawn more, but also problems with
position as Black within the first ten his king’s position, while the opposite-
moves, and who does not necessarily coloured bishops should help facilitate an
have to refute their opponent’s madness, attack.
this is a very safe choice. 10 bxc3 £sxc4 11 #d4
a) 9...*§)e7P looks safe as well, but it
only takes a few moves to shatter the illu¬
sion. After 10 bxc3 0-0 11 Sel £lf6 12 d6
cxd6 13 Jta3 White’s attack is very
strong.
b) 9...JLa5 is also playable, though not
as good as the text move. Now 10 dxc6
bxc6 11 <5)e5 <5ld6 gives us two interest¬
ing options:

11. ..0-0
Anand probably felt little doubt in the
practicality of this move. Black is safely
developed and White’s initiative is already
stalling.
After ll...£kd6? Black would be made
suffer for his greed with the surprising
sequence 12 Wxg7 Wf6 13 ®xf6! (Black’s
extra piece is doing little in the defence)
13...£lxf6 14 fiel+ £>fe4 (14...*f8? 15
(13...£)xc4 14 &xc4 J.xb4 15 Lbl trans¬ i.h6+ &g8 16 Se5 <&fe4 17 Bel and
poses; not 14...#xal?? 15 Hel+ ^fB 16 White wins) 15 £k!2 f5 16 £3 0-0 17 fxe4
We2 and White wins) 14 jtb2 £lxc4 15 ^xe4 18 thxeA fxe4 19 Bxe4 and White
4lxc4 #g6 16 Bfel+ and, according to is at least slightly better here.
Moller, White has a promising attack. The However, Black can choose which
analysis could continue 16...<&>f8 17 1Brh4 knight White can take by protecting the
f6 18 the5 fxe5 19 #xb4+ d6 20 flxe5 c5 better placed of the two. I firmly believe
21 th3 #17 22 2e3 «5cb3 23 axb3 and that ll...£5! is the best way forward. Now
White has compensation enough for play could continue 12 Wxc4 d6 13 <5M4
draw, but hardly anything more. 0-0 14 f3 £k5 15 4a3 b6 16 M,xc5 bxc5
b2) The simple exchange 12 £)xf7!? 17 £>c6 ®f6 18 Bfel ±dl 19 Be7 If7
<5)xf7 13 JLxf7+ ^xf7 14 Wh5+ <i>g8 15 20 Bael lxe7 21 Ixe7 Bd8! and Black is

26
 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game

for preference. 27.. .<4>e7 28 <&e3 ±d5\ 29 2xd5 Sxd5 30

12«5ce4£id6 cxd5 <*t?xd6 and Black will win this ending
This is stronger than 12...b5P! when with the passed pawn and good position
White can play 13 a4 c6 14 dxc6 d5 15 of his rook.
'®d3 bxa4 16 4lg5 with the initiative. 23.. .flb8
13 #d3 b6 14 Aa3 #f6 15 Wd4

24 a5?
White has probably enough compensa¬ The computer can see that he will win
tion to make a draw, but he (it!) will also back his pawn in the short term; but the
have to prove it in practice, something grandmaster understands that, in the long
computers can have great difficulties do¬ term, Black will activate his rook, when
ing in this kind of position. the white position is beyond salvation.
Instead after 15 Hfel jLb7 16 ^3e5 After the stronger 24 c4 Sc7 25 a5 Sc6
2ad8 17 &g4 Wf4 18 &e5 Sfe8 19 26 2xb6 Sbxb6 27 axb6 2xb6 28 c5 2c6
JLxd6 cxd6 20 4if3 2c8 Black is slightly 29 Sa5 White would have kept good
better. drawing chances.
15...1fxd4 16 £lxd4 Ab7 17 !xd6 24.. .b5 25 c4 b4 26 Ba4 b3 27 Ia3
cxd6 18 £if5 g6 19 £ixd6 l.xd5 20 Bc7 28 Baxb3 lxb3 29 Sxb3 Hc5 30
fifel ±e6 21 f4 a6 22 a4 Sa7 23 £ib7?!
Sebl Now the white pieces will be lost in the
White is unable to build a fortress. But far comer of the board. Instead 30 ^?f2
even if he was, this is a dark spot for would have offered more resistance.
computers, which do not understand the 30.. .fixa5 should be enough to win for
concept of fortresses at all, as their hori¬ Black, but only after a hard fight.
zon are too short. They cannot under¬ 30.. .2.c4 31 Sb6 Bc2 32 £ld6 *f8
stand that no improvements can be made 33 Bxa6 ±,d5!
to the position, ever, as they cling to what The a-pawn is nothing but a dissident
they can calculate. After 23 Sabi?! Kb8 under state control.
24 c4 flc7 25 2e4 Sc5 26 *£2 *f8 27 34 g3 Bg2+ 35 *f1 Sxh2 36 Ia7
Sd4 the conquest of the fortress is easy: 36 Hb6 3Sa2 37 a6 li?e7 and Black wins

27
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

as the a-pawn cannot escape. into the enemy position like an avant-
36...±c6 37 Hg2 38 ^b6 lxg3 garde soldier, who will clear the way for
39 ^xd7+ ±xd7 40 Bxd7 fla3 41 the remains of the army. This is probable
Ba7 If3+ 42 *g2 Bxf4 43 a6 fia4 the soundest strategy here.
44 Ba8+ *g7 45 *h2 h5 0-1 A little sideline that sometimes is seen
at amateur level, and which can lead to
Game 8 inspiring victories, is 12 g4?, but I do not
J.Fang-A.Ivanov believe in it. This “bayonet attack’ is remi¬
Manchester, USA 1999 niscent of an infantry assault on a bunker
in which everyone has a machine gun...
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £ic6 3 kc4 ±c5 4 c3 After normal moves for Black like
5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 A,b4+ 7 12.. .0.0 13 g5 Ae5 14 £ke5 Af5 15 Ie3
£sc3?! 4ixe4 8 0-0 ±,xc3 9 d5 ±f6 dxe5 16 3Sxe5 Wd7 we can conclude that
the white king will have to surrender quite
soon.
12.. Jbtg5
Black has no choice but to go into this
forcing line. On 12..JLf5?! White has an
annoying check in 13 jLb5+, and after
13.. .*ffi 14 Se3 ±xg5 15 £kg5 h6 16
the initiative looks truly dangerous.
13 4bxg5

Just as in the previous variation, White

has chances for equality. But this is as far
as it goes if Black plays correctly. 9.. JLf6
has been the main line of the Moller At¬
tack for more than a hundred years, and
despite short-lived resurrections of the
White initiative. Black has always been
able to solve his problems more than sat¬
isfactorily.
10 lei £se7 13.. .H6!
10...0-0?! 11 fixe4 £k7 12 d6! is a the¬ This was the improvement for Black
matic trick, when after 12...cxd6 13 JLg5 that shifted the variation from ‘not too
4^6 14 1tfd5 White is slightly better ac¬ dangerous’ to ‘downright dubious’.
cording to grandmaster LJnzicker. The other main line starts with 13...0-0,
11 lxe4 d6 12 ±g5 when 14 ^3xh7! is the only chance for a
White is trying to ‘launch’ the knight real attack. So far it has been believed to

28
 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game

force a draw, though as we shall see this is exf7+ Bxf7 24 Bh3 #el+ 25 Jlfl Bff8
not completely clear. 14...'A’xh7!? is the 26 Wh7+ 'A’H 27 Wxf5+ *g8 ‘/a-’/a
sharpest reply and feels best (though A.Nogueira-M.Valverde Lopez, corre¬
14.. Jtf5 15 Bxe7 Wxe7 16 Bxf8 spondence 1977. So this line does not
with equality is also possible). Now White seem to be playable for White,
continues with 15 #h5+ ifrg8 16 ffh4, b) 17 Bh3? is Paul Keres’ idea, but it does
and here Black has the choice between not stand the test of our time: computer
16.. .f6 17 Ad3 f5 18 ±e2 Be8 19 Bel analysis, e.g. 17...f4 18 Wh7+ <4>f7 19
*f8 20 Ab5 Ad7 21 Be6 Axb5 22 Bf6+ Hi5+ g6! (if 19...^>g8 20 Wh7+ with
with equality according to Perez, or to equality) 20 W?h7+ *f6 21 #h4+ g5 22
enter a much larger maze with 16...f5! Wfh6+ £)g6 23 Sh5 Bh8 24 #xg5+ ^>g7
25 J.d3 Wxg5 26 Bxg5 Sh6 27 Bel *f6
28 Sxg6+ Bxg6 29 JLxg6 4>xg6 and
Black should win.
c) The best option by far is 17 'Bfh7+
*f7 18 Bh6 lg8 19 Bel

when we have the following options:

a) 17 Bel?! has the idea of 17...Be8? 18
Se6! &f8 19 Bf4 ±d7 20 Bf3!! £)g8 (if
20...4’g8 21 Bg3 wins) 21 Bxf5+ $3£6 22
Sfxf6+ gxf6 (or 22..Mx£6 23 Bxf6+ gxf6
24 Wh8+ <4>e7 25 %7+ ^>d8 26 lrxf6+ when Black has:
4?c8 27 h4 and White wins) 23 Wh8+ cl) 19...JLd7?? loses to the fabulous 20
*f7 24 Wh7+ *f8 25 ±e2! Axe6 26 Bee6!! Jk.xe6 21 dxe6+ 'A'eS 22 Bg6 d5 23
dxe6 Bxe6 27 Wh8+ &e7 28 %7+ &e8 Bxg7 Wd6 24 Bxg8+ &)xg8 25 Wf7+
29 ±h5 mate. ^d8 26 J.b5!? (or 26 Wfxg8+ &e7 27
However, Black can play more strongly Wf7+ <4?d8 28 Axd5 We7 29 Wg8+ We8
with 17...£>g6! 18 Sh3 Sf6! 19 Bg3 (if 19 30 %5+ Wei 31 WxfS) 26...C6 27 Wxg8+
Wfh7+ *f7 20 Be6 £>f8 21 Wfh5+ g6 22 &e7 28 #xa8 cxb5 29 #xb7+ ^xc(> 30
Wfh8 Axc6 23 dxe6+ Bxe6 24 Axe6+ Wxb5 and White wins.
it?xe6 and Black wins) 19...^3e5 20 f4 c2) 19...*f8 is met by 20 Bh3 Ad7 21
<§3f7 21 Be6, and now after 21..Jtd7! Bhe3 £k8 22 Ad3 g6 23 h4 Bg7 24
Black retains his material advantage, in¬ ®i8+ Sg8 with equality according to
stead of 21...JLxe6? 22 dxe6 Wc7 23 Sozin.

29
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

c3) 19...#18! is the best chance accord¬ 27 #d8+ &g7 28 %5+ *h7 29
ing to my analysis. Here White can try to #h5+ 4-g8 30 #g5+ flg7 31 '#'08+ <4>h7
reorganise his troops with 20 fih3 and 32 #e8! and there is seemingly no way to
then: escape the perpetual check.
c31) 20...Ad7?! (complicated but infe¬ So maybe 13...0-0 does give White a
rior) 21 She3 43g6! (necessary if Black is draw after all.
to play for a win; certainly not 21...He8?
22 Ae2!! when Black has no decent de¬
fence against 23 Ah5) 22 Se6! (appar¬
ently forced; if 22 #h5? flh8 23 Se7+
#xe7 24 Bxe7+ &f6ll and Black wins, or
22 Ig3 4lf4 23 1014 g5! 24 Sxg5 fixgS
25 lxg5 43g6 and Black’s advantage is
close to decisive) 22...Axe6 23 dxe6+
s£?e7 24 !xg6 Bh8 25 lg3 c6 when
White retains some compensation.
c32) 20...<i>f6!! is one of those truly
stunning moves which a computer can
sometimes find. The idea is very simple: 14#e2
White is not allowed a check on e7 in the Alternatives:
most forcing lines, e.g. if 21 2he3? 2h8! a) 14 Ab5+?! Ad7 15 Wc2 Axb5 16
and Black wins instandy. Instead White Wxb5+ Wd7 17 #e2 *f8! 18 43f3 £kd5
can try 21 lh4+ g5 22 #d4+ <&>g6 23 and White has no compensation.
Well g4 24 She3 Ig7 25 #c2 43g8 26 b) 14 Wh5 0-0 15 fiael 43f5 (simpler is
Se8 lf7 and here Black will win because 15.. .43g6! 16 43f3 #f6 17 43d4 Ad7
of 27...43f6 and White has no counterplay when a pawn is a pawn) 16 43f3 (or 16
for the piece. I am not too eager to risk 43h3!? Ad7 17 43f4 with the initiative,
my reputation by giving a clear evaluation e.g. 17...#g5 18 Wxg5 hxg5 19 43e6 fxe6
of this line, since maybe White has a way 20 dxe6 Ae8 21 e7+ 2f7 22 f4 etc.)
to strengthen his attack earlier on? I be¬ 16.. #f6? (and here 16...g6! 17 #g4 Ad7,
lieve in Black’s position, but one unpre¬ though White has some compensation
dictable tactic could turn everything up¬ for the material after 18 fl4e2 Wf6 19
side down. Ad3 Iae8 20 #b4 Bxe2 21 Bxe2) 17 g4
And anyway, White can possibly im¬ g6 18 #h3 43g7 19 #xh6 #xf3 20 Hf4
prove earlier with 20 Ab5! Hh8 21 #xh8 43f5 21 #xf8+ lfexf8 22 2xf3 and White
gxh6 22 #h7+ ifefb 23 flxc7 #xe7 24 wins, J.Majewski-P.Bielak, correspon¬
Wxh6+ and equality according to Keres. dence 1992.
It looks as if the simple 20...a6!? questions c) 14 43xf7?! <4>xf7 15 #f3+ 43f5 (not
this, but here White can play 21 Hee6! 15.. .6g8?? 16 lael or 15...*g6P? 16
axb5 22 Bhf6+ ^e8 23 Bxf8+ fixffi 24 Bxe7 and White wins, while if 15...Af5?
lxe7+! <4’xe7 25 #xg7+ Bf7 26 Wg5+ 16 Bael g6 17 g4 with a strong attack) 16

30
 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game

g4 Hffi! (if 16...%5P! 17 *hl flf8 18

gxf5 Axf5 19 Igl Wf6 20 Bf4 g6 21
J.d3 &e7 22 Axfi gx£5 23 Wb3 b6 24
lc2 and White has the initiative) 17 gxf5
i’gS and Black is better.
14.. .hxg5 15 Bel ±e6 16 dxe6 f6
16...£5? 17 Bd4 c6 gives equality ac¬
cording to ECO, but after the not too
difficult 18 Wd2\ d5 19 Wxg5 Wd6 20
flh4 0-0-0 21 Ad3 White is better.
17fle3 c6 18 fih3
If 18 l.d3 Wfc7 19 h3 d5 20 b4 a5 21
b5 c5 and Black is much better. Now everything is over and done with.
18.. .1.h3 19 gxh3 g6 20 ld2 29 a5 flxh3 30 Sel b5 31 «c2
After 20 Wf3 ®a5 21 Sdl Wf5 22 lxh2+ 32 &f1 !h1+ 33 <S?e2 *f3+
1033 b5 23 i.fl We5 24 Sd3 Bd8 25 34 4>d2 *xf2+ 35 i?d1 lxc2+ 36
Se3 lc5 Black is close to winning. &xc2 &c7 37 b4 *d6 0-1
20.. .d5 21 !c3 d4 22 lf3 #a5 23
Se2 Wf5 Game 9
E.Van den Doel-I.Sokolov
D utch Championship, Eeeuwarden 2004

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 &c4 Ac5 4 c3

£>f6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 i.b4+ 7 l.d2

Black is close to winning here too.

24 !a3 If4!
Stronger than 24...1rbl4-?! which could
lead to 25 <4>g2 £*£5 26 £3 £>h4+? (here
26...1rcl with an attack is still OK,
though not as good as the game move) 27 Natural and sound.
Whl 28 ld6! with sudden counter- 7...ilxd2+
play. Though very logical, this is not Black’s
25 J.d3 f5 26 lc5 b6 27 #c4 0-0-0 only option in this position. He has also
28 a4 h8! tried:

31
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

a) 7...^xe4 8 A.xb4 £\xb4 9 Axf7+ can vary from the standard 9 <§lbxd2 with
(otherwise White has nothing, e.g. 9 Wb3 9 1Brxd2, though after 9...‘?\xd5 10 0-0 0-0
d5 10 HFxb4 dxc4 11 0-0 Wd6 12 Wxc4 11 £3c3 £lce7 12 Ifel c6 13 h6 14
0-0 13 S3c3 with equality, but even this is h3 Jtf5 Black has equality, A.Schwenk-
not too dangerous) 9...<A’xf7 10 Wb3+ d5 I.Krasenkova, Baden Baden 1993.
(Black can also try lO-.'i’fB 11 Wxb4+ 8 <Slbxd2 d5
Wei 12 fce7+ ^xe7 13 0-0 with equal¬ 8...4ixe4 looks tempting, but White re¬
ity) 11 ^)e5+ <<t?e6! (but not 11 ...<&>f6? 12 acts energetically with 9 d5! ‘Slxd2 10
B 4^d6 13 *xb4 l,f5 14 0-0 and White Wxd2 £)e7 11 d6 cxd6 12 ®xd6 b5 (or
is better) 12 '@xb4 c5 13 Wa3 cxd4 14 12...&f5 13 Wc5+ Wcl 14 0-0-0 with an
&£3 Wb6 15 0-0 *f7 16 4)e5+ (not 16 attack according to Makarychev) 13 Ab3
<S(\bd2?! Ie8 17 Wh3 £>xd2 18 Wxd5+ 0-0 14 0-0 a5 15 Sfel a4 16 ±c2 <S3g6 17
±e6 19 lh5+ ‘i’gB 20 <$3xd2 Wxb2 21 Jlxg6 hxg6 18 Wg3 and White had com¬
‘SlB Axa2 and Black is close to winning, pensation in A.Tzermiadianos-
G.Lee-G.Flear, British Championship V.Kotronias, Athens 1998. Also after the
2002) 16...*e6 (again 16...*fiS? is even more tempting 18 Be7!P Sa6 19
strongly met by 17 B! &xe5 18 fxe4 dxe4 lh4 d5 20 Be5 f6 21 Ie3 Wa5 22 Wd4
19 «e7+ *d5 20 %5+ <&d6 21 fh4+ Bd8 23 Bael White has compensation
*d7 22 fbte4 and Black has a hard life, for the pawn.
while if 18...d3+ 19 *hl dxe4 20 We7+ 9 exd5 £>xd5
J,e6 21 <Sic3 fihg8 22 Bael and White
wins)

10 #b3
Some players are afraid of 10 0-0 0-0
and now White can choose between 17 11 £le5!?, but Black has two sensible
<$30 with equality, and 17 ‘Sid 3, which ways of ensuring himself an equal game:
gives compensation is the following way: a) ll...<Ske5 12 dxe5 &f4 13 £le4 Wei
17...Ie8 18 Bel &f7 19 B £ld6 20 Bxe8 14 Wd4 Bd8 15 Wc5 Wxc5 16 £lxc5 b6
<4>xe8 21 £\d2 Af5 22 flel+ <^f7 23 He5. 17 fiadl J,f5 18 4*)a6 c5 19 *§3c7 Bab8
b) 7...d5!? is a litde known, but decent with equality, T.Lovholt-R.Monner Sans,
alternative. After 8 exd5 Axd2+ White correspondence 1995.

32
 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game

b) 11 ...4fixd4 12 £ib3 <S3xb3 13 JlxdS This allows Black to become active a

tT6! (13...<?3xal ? 14 Axf7+ i>h8 15 Wh5 bit too easily. I suggest 16 Wc2!? as an
is a famous attack that even defeated the improvement. Then after 16...h6 17 a3
great Capablanca) 14 Ax 17+ (not 14 ^f4 18 &h7+ <4>h8 19 Ae4 *T6 20 b4
4ixf7 ^Qxal! and White has nothing) Id8 21 Had White keeps some pressure.
14.. .fixf7 15 Wxb3 Wxe5! and Black had 16.. .£if4 17 jLbl
equalised in P.Figueiredo-A.Pereira, Vila Or 17 ±e4 i.g4 18 h3 l.xf3 19 '#'xf3
Nova de Gaia 2004, because of 16 flael #g5 20 <4)h2 Hfd8 21 Hcdl with equality.
±e6L 17.. .«f6 18 <S3e5 %5 19 #f3 f6
10.. .<glce7 Black is seemingly not completely fo¬
This is a little bit passive, after which cused on the need to secure counterplay
White manages to organise some small immediately. Best was 19...J=h3! 20 g3
pressure. The stronger 10...^3a5! is inves¬ 4t)>fd5 and Black equalises. For example,
tigated in the next game. However, the after the aggressive 21 g4 ?3f4 22 4he4
text move does has the advantage of de¬ H16 23 g5 ®h4 24 %3 Wxg3+ 25 hxg3
nying White the possibility of repeating £)e6 26 Hc3 J-f5 and Black is fine.
the position, as he can after 10...^3a5. 20 £led3 £>bd5 21 ^xf4 £sxf4 22 h4
11 0-0 0-0 12 fife 1 c6 13 53e4 <5ib6 *h6 23 g3 «3d5 24 ±e4 £3b6 25
13...Wb6 is best met by 14 <£k3 (not 14 »b3+ *h8 26 #a3 Sa8
Wa3 i.g4 15 £>e5 #xd4 16 £ld6 ±e6 17
<53xb7 <£ig6 with equality, E.Sveshnikov-
V.Chekhov, Sochi 1983) 14...®xb3 15
J»xb3 itg4 16 <§3xd5 4^xd5 17 jtxd5
cxd5 18 Se7 and White has a slight ad¬
vantage according to Makarychev.
14±d3

27 #e3?
A strange mistake. After 27 Jlf3!
White is much better, preparing the inva¬
sion of the seventh rank, and keeping all
the black pieces tied down.
27...#xe3 28 Sxe3 fie8 29 Seel
£ic4 30 H3e2 <Sid6 31 ±,d3 Bxe2 32
White is slighdy better here as the b6- Hxe2 *g8 33 ±c2
knight is passive. Now White is looking for a draw. In¬
14...4bed5 15 ^c5 Hb8 16 lacl?! stead after 33 <S?g2 b6 34 4t3e6 jtb7 Black

33
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

has counterplay. This makes it easier, but it was already

33...b6 34 ±b3+ *f8 35 &e6+ too late to save the game. If 54 4?d5
±xe6 36 Sxe6 &f5 37 fixc6 ^ixd4 Hxh4 55 Bxf6+ <4>g5 56 Bf8 flh2 57 f6
38 Sc7 ®xb3 39 axb3 fid8 40 flxa7 4>g6 58 <4e5 Se2+ 59 4>f4 b4 60 4>f3
Sd3 41 Ia3 b5 42 b4 fld4 Bel 61 Bb8 fibl 62 Bb6 b3 63 ll?g3 h4+
You really need to try hard to lose an 64 4>h3 b2 65 4>h2 h3 66 f7+ 4>xf7 67
ending like this. The inactive placement Bb3 4>f6 and Black wins.
of the rook is a good place to start. 54...fixh4 55 Ixf6+ 4g5 56 flg6+
43 8b3 h5 44 4>g2 *f7 45 <4f3 fic4 *xf5 57 8b6 Ib4 0-1
46 sl?e3 g5
Game 10
J. Marsden-J .Sutton
Correspondence 2001

1 e4 e5 2 £lf3 £>c6 3 ±c4 J.c5 4 c3

£}f6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 i,b4+ 7 ±d2
±xd2+ 8 £sbxd2 d5 9 exd5 £sxd5 10
®b3

47 f4?
This merely creates a lot of weaknesses
in his own camp. Instead after 47 hxg5
fxg5 48 Bc3 Bxb4 49 Sc5 4T6 50 Bc6+
*f5 51 Ic5+ 4>g4 52 B+ 4>xg3 53
Bxg5+ 4h4 54 Bgl Sxb2 55 f4 2b3+ 56
4>e4 White is safe.
47.. .gxh4 48 gxh4 *g6 49 Sc3 Sxb4
50 lc5 Hb3+ 51 *e4 8xb2 52 f5+ 10...£)a5!
*h6 53 Sc6? This move secures Black equality, but
White could do much better with 53 also allows White to repeat the position.
4>f3 fib4 54 <4g3 Bg4+ 55 4>h3 b4 56 11 ®a4+ 5lc6
Ic6 *g7 57 Bc7+ <4>f8 58 Bb7 Hc4 59 Forced. After ll...c6P! 12 ±xd5 #xd5
4>g3 flc3+ 60 4>f2 b3 61 2b6 4>e7 62 13 Bel! Black is in trouble, e.g. 13...Wb5
He6+ ifef7 63 Bb6 Hh3 when he can fin¬ 14 Wxb5 cxb5 15 d5 4>e7 16 b4 “$3c4 17
ish up in the endgame with f- and h- “53x04 bxc4 18 Bxc4 rJ?d6 19 0-0 and
pawns, one that offers excellent drawing White has a clear advantage.
chances. 12 J,b5
53.. .Hb4+ 54 <443? 12 WbS!? would repeat the position,

34
 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game

but here White is looking for more. Wd6 20 Wc5 with compensation.
12.. .J,d7 19...#d6 20 Wxd6 cxd6 21 Scdl d5
After the anti-positional 12...0-0?! 13 22 £>c5 flfc8 23 ^xb7 Sc2 24 Se2
jtxc6 bxc6 14 0-0 15 Sfel M,c(> 16 flc7 25 43a5 Ad7 26 ^b3 Ab5 V2-V2
Wxc6 White is much better, J.Bosch-
D. Pirrot, German Bundesliga 1997. Game 11
13 0-0 D. Hergott-G .Garcia
White needs to get his king into safety Linares 1994
before it is too late. After 13 Hj3?! #e7+
14 ifefl J,e6! White does not have com¬ 1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £ic6 3 J.c4 J.c5 4 c3
pensation for the bad position of his king, £rf6 5 d4 exd4 6 0-0
E. Sveshnikov-E.Mortensen, Leningrad
1984.
13.. .0.0 14 Hfel a6 15 Afl i.f5
This is better than 15...4^cb4 16 Wb3
±f5 17 Bad a5 18 a3 a4 19 Wc4 <^c6 20
Wb5 lc8 21 £)e4 Sa5 22 Wd3 ±(5 23
Wd2 and White has a small edge,
P.Morssink-E.Van der Bij, correspon¬
dence 1990.
16 Sacl
Also after 16 1iBrb3!? 2b8 17 Sadi Wd6
18 a3 there is nothing but equality.
16.. .&b6 This romantic gambit does not offer
White any chances for an advantage. Ac¬
tually at times he needs to be careful not
to be worse.
6...£ixe4
Others:
a) 6...d5?! is very dangerous. After 7
exd5 4tlxd5 8 flel+ Ae6 9 4^g5 White
has the advantage, e.g. 9...0-0 10 ®d3 g6
11 Sxe6! fxe6 12 Hi3 #e7 13 #xe6+
Wxe6 14 4tixe6 and White was better in
Y.Estrin-S.Letic, correspondence 1967.
b) 6...d3 has been played in some re¬
17 «a3! cent games, though mainly by players
White tries to sacrifice a pawn to get wanting to avoid main lines they were
the initiative. unfamiliar with. White has a slight plus
17...£ixd4 18 £ixd4 #xd4 19 £sb3 after almost any move. One line could be
Maybe there was more play in 19 4*30!? 7 e5 d5 8 Axd3 £\g4 9 #e2 Wei 10 Af4

35
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

and Black has no easy way of improving '/2.-/1 T.L.Petrosian-A.Grischuk, Internet

his position, as after the possibly best (blitz) 2004; White is certainly not better
10.. .f6 11 exf6 Wxe2 12 ilxe2 ‘Shxfh here, but probably not worse either) 10
White should secure a clear edge with 13 #xc4 (if 10 Bel 44xc5 11 *xc4 Ae6!
jhtc7!. and Black is better — Lukacs) 10...54xc5
c) 6...dxc3 looks risky, but after 7 e5!? (or 10...B!? - Lukacs) and now 11 J,e3!?
d5! Black is doing all right. 8 Ab3 can be was suggested by Golod, intending
met strongly with 8...c2! 9 Jtxc2 $3e4 10 11.. .'2)e6 12 *54c3 with compensation, but
<5)c3 £4xc3 11 bxc3 Jlg4 when White’s here 12...*b4! seems to give White prob¬
compensation is in doubt, J.Blauert- lems proving this. Black is a little better.
D.Belotelov, Budapest 1997. b) 9 Wei *67 10 £lc3 £\xc3 11 *xc3
7 cxd4 d5! 0-0 12 *xc4 Ada was pleasantly equal
The only move. 7...Ae7}\ 8 d5 ?4b8 9 for Black in A.Pashikian-G.Sargissian,
Bel <54d6 (or 9...<54f6? 10 d6 cxd6 11 Ag5 Armenian Championship 2003. And
0-0 12 Bxe7! *xe7 13 ^c3 gives White a Black can probably create more problems
whirlwind initiative) 10 Jk.d3 0-0 11 ^3c3 for White with more ambitious play.
and White has very pleasant compensa¬ 9.. .*xd8
tion for the pawn. 9.. .£4xd8? is just wrong. After 10 Bel
8 dxc5 f5 11 *54g5 0-0 12 4t)xe4 fxe4 13 Bxe4
No choice. Ae6 14 £>c3 Af7 15 ±f4 £4e6 16 Ae3
8.. .dxc4 White dominated in L.Barczay-L.Karsa,
Hungarian Championship 1980.
10 Bd1 +
White has also tried 10 £4g5 <5)xg5 11
Axg5+ £6 12 fidl+ (after 12 Af4 5)b4 13
£\a3 *5M3 14 Bfdl Ad7 15 Ag3 *54xb2
16 Bd4 9t?c8 17 <5)xc4 £)xc4 18 fixc4 a5
19 Bel Be8 Black was a pawn up with
opposite-coloured bishops in D.Dumi-
trache-Kr.Georgiev, Athens 1992; with
accurate play and help from the oppo¬
nent, Black managed to gain a full point)
12.. ..kd7 13 A £4 *5bb4! (the way to ensure
White has tried several moves in this an advantage) 14 <53c3 4)d3 15 Jcg3
position, but none that leads to anything *54x05 16 Bd4 *54e6 17 Bxc4 was
better than a struggle (often successful) J.Blauert-G.Von Biilow, German
for equality. Bundesliga 1998, when Black has many
9 «xd8+ ways to try to win with his extra pawn.
a) 9 We2 We7l? (more ambitious than 10 J,d7
the old move 9...Wd3, e.g. 10 Bel f5 11 10.. .4?e8 is met by 11 Bel f5 12 *$lc3
*54c3 0-0 12 *54xe4 fxe4 13 Wxc4 Jlf5 and White is OK.

36
 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game

11 ±e3 4(34xc5 gave Black a very clear edge in

After 11 4£ia3 £\xc5 Black is just a P.Tishin-O.Karpeshov, Samara 2002.
pawn up, while 11 4*3g5 4(3 xg5 12 Jtxg5+ 18.. .fld8 was even stronger, when Black is
<4>c8 13 £3a3 £.e6 14 £\b5 a6 15 £>d4 just winning.
£3xd4 16 Ixd4 a5 17 ladl f6 18 1x12 12.. .1.6 13 <53a3 c3 14 bxc3 b6
fia6 was J.Blauert-M.Hebden, London Although namral, this seems a bit too
Lloyds Bank 1991. Again Black managed early. Instead 14...2e8! was a useful wait¬
to convert his extra pawn to a full point ing move, when White is desperately
despite the opposite-coloured bishops. As fighting for equality, and will probably be
in the previous example, this can be at¬ unsuccessful.
tributed to the fact that Black was the 15 4bd4 ld7 16^b3
stronger player, as well as to the position. 16 £3 <S3xc5 was a little better for Black
in N.Kopylov-M.Govbinder, correspon¬
dence 1976.
16.. .Be8 17 Sabi Hb8 18 £ib5 bxc5
19 £3a5?
19 4lxc5! 4lxc5 20 lxc5 was neces¬
sary, when the game is level after 20...1f5
21 Bb3 lc2 (21...Se2!? 22 &xa7+ &xa7
23 lxa7 Sa8 24 ld4 Haxa2 gives a bit
more play, but it is still a dead draw) 22
&xa7+! £\xa7 23 lxa7 lxb3 24 lxb8
lxa2 25 la7 with a draw.

11.. .*c8
Black can also play for an advantage
with ll...'A>e7!? and then after 12 43bd2
(if 12 43a3 c3! 13 bxc3 <53xc3 14 fld3 £3e4
15 Bel Ie6 and Black had a slight edge
in K.Honfi-G.Sax, Hungary 1970)
12.. .11.d2 13 £3xd2 le6 14 Sdcl (as in
F.Ramos Suria-A.Sorin, Seville 1989)
14.. H5 15 f4 <53d3 16 flc3 b5 17 cxb6
axb6 18 *53xc4 lxc4 19 2xc4 c5 allows
White to regain his pawn, but his pieces
are very badly coordinated and his posi¬
tion full of weaknesses. 19...2xb5! was very strong. White has
12 Hci no choice but to enter a ridiculous end¬
12 <S3a3 is weaker, when 12...c3 13 b3 game with 20 Bxb5 a6 21 43xc6 axb5 22
Be8 14 Sdcl “5tib4 15 £3el 4(3d5 16 ld4 ^3a5 when Black’s extra pawn should tell.
17 Sc2 iff5 18 g3 £>e6 19 lxc3 20 £>xc6 Jlxc6 21 43a3?!

37
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

White had to play 21 £k7+ <A>d7 22 56 ,4>e3 c4 57 Sc8+

Bxb8 SxbB 23 f3 4}d6 24 Axc5 when
Black is better, but not too much.
21 ...2xb1 22 £sxb1 £\d6 23 c4 £sf5
24 Axc5 2e5 25 Af8 £ih4 26 Axg7
2g5 27 ,5.f6 Ixg2+ 28 4?f1 Sxh2 29
<4,e2 ®»f3 30 £ic3
30 Jtc3 was slighdy better, but the po¬
sition is very bad for White anyway.
30...Ih6! 31 ±,h8 2e6+ 32 4?d3 4?d7
33 £)d5 h5 34 flhl h4 35 2h3 J.xd5
36 cxd5 2h6 37 !,g7 2h5!

57...4>d5
Sacrificing the a-pawn seems a bit un¬
necessary.
58 Ha8 *c5 59 2xa5+ <i>b4 60 Ha8
c3 61 2c8 &b3 62 a5 c2 63 a6 4?b2
64 Sb8+ 4>c1 65 &e2 2a7 66 Sb6
f5 67 <S?e1 f4 68 &e2 Sa8 69 *e1
Se8+ 70 4>f2 2a8
70.. .5d8 71 <&el Sd3 72 a7 Se3+ 73
<4>f2 Sa3 74 Sb7 is also a draw.
71 &e1 Sa7 72 4>e2 2e7+ 73 <4?f2
Black has a lot of nice options, e.g. Se3 74 a7 Sa3 75 Bb7 *d2 76
37...<5^g5 38 Sh2 Sd6 with a clear extra Id7+ &c3 77 2c7+ sfeb2 78 2b7+
pawn. After the text White has no choice &a1 79 2c7 *b1 80 2b7 + ifral 81
but to enter a bad rook endgame. 2c7 Sa2?!
38 2xf3 h3 39 Ae5 2xe5 40 2xh3 Why not just accept that the position is
2xd5+ 41 4?c3 now drawn?
White has drawing chances, but in 82 a8# 2xa8 83 2xc2 4?b1 84 2c4
practical terms, it is hard to defend. 2a2+ 85 *f1 4>b2 86 2xf4 *c3 87
41 ...2f5 42 Hd3+ it?c6 43 f3 ti?b5 44 Ig4 *d3 88 2g2 2a 1 + 89 <S?f2 4?d4?
*d2 c5 45 2b3+ *a4 46 2c3 2d5+ 89.. .fia2+ 90 'ffegd Ha8 still draws. Af¬
47 *c2 Hf5 48 4>d2 a5 49 <4e3 -ib4 ter the text suddenly White is winning.
50 2b3+ <4’c4 51 2a3 <4b5 52 2b3+ 90 Sg5! 2a8 91 *g3 2a7 92 *g4
*c6 53 a4 2e5+ 54 *f4 2d5 55 2a8 93 f4 2a1 94 2e5 2g1 + 95 *f5
2b8 2d7 2g8 96 2e6 2f8+ 97 4?g5 2g8+ 98
Stronger was 55...fid4+ 56 'i’eS flxa4 2g6 If8 99 f5 st?d5 100 2e6 2g8+
57 flf8 Sd4 58 flxf7 2d7 59 lf6+ *b5 101 *f6 2f8+ 102 *g6 2g8+ 103
and Black should win. *f7 2g5 104 f6 1-0

38
 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game

Summary
As we have seen in the five games in this chapter Black has nothing to fear from the
classical lines of the Italian Game, short of a short draw that is. The various gambits,
the Moller and 6 0-0, are only dangerous for White and belong to the past. The main
line is also completely harmless and the only problem Black needs to worry about is
how to create winning chances.
For White, the idea of winning seems to be far away. If you want to play for a win in
the Italian Game, you need to play 5 d3, as presented in the next chapter.

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £ic6 3 ±c4 Ac5 4 c3 £if6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4

6 0-0 £lxe4 7 cxd4 d5 - Game 11
6.. .J.b4+ (D) 7 J.d2
7 £lc3 £lxe4 8 0-0 i.xc3 9 d5 (D)
9.. .£3e5 - Game 7
9.. .1.f6 -Game 8
7.. .J,xd2+ 8 £>bxd2 d5 9 exd5 £>xd5 10 #b3 (D)
10...£lce7 -Game 9
lO-.^aS - Game 10

imm® h hmmmm s
mmmmt Hit iii
mm, m m ■ l|!£!f| §ff 9 9
■ (S ii §1 §1
£13 'H 111 £11
mmm mn m mmm

6...kb4 + 9 d5 10Wb3

39
 ih mmm*' h
CHAPTER FOUR | nit ±±i
■%)" %
m
i 1 ^
The Italian Regretted: m. m mxm
White Plays 5 d3 mSmm ~

As said in the previous chapter I do not who play this line regularly as White and
believe that there is anything dangerous with good results.
to White’s play after 1 e4 e5 2 4bf3 In Games 12 and 13 below we shall
£ic6 3 J=c4 Ac5 4 c3 5 d3. look at an early 5...a6, where Black retains
the idea of playing ...d7-d5 in one move.
Black will always want to put his bishop
on a7 in these quiet lines, so White some¬
times pre-empts this early transposition
with a quick 5 b4!?. The resulting posi¬
tions of this rapid queenside advance can
be seen in Games 14 and 15. In the next
game White plays a2-a4 without any ap¬
parent plan beyond preventing Black
from exchanging the white bishop with a
quick ,..^3a5.
Finally, in Games 17 and 18, we will
Black should always equalise without examine positions not too different from
any real effort. Actually the line reminds the first two games in the chapter, where
me quite a bit of the 4 d3 line in the Ruy we have the Italian with 5 d3 in its purest
Lopez; sometimes there are even transpo¬ form.
sitions between the two openings.
Having stated once more that the line Game 12
is harmless, it is important for me to re¬ S.Vysochin-S.Kapnisis
peat the old Russian distinction between Corinth 2004
drawn positions and equal positions.
There are players far stronger than me 1 e4 e5 2 £lf3 CscG 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 c3

40
 The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3

£>f6 5 d3 a6 and White is much better.

Black should not overstate the harm¬ b) 9...dxe4 10 dxe4?! (the knight on d2
lessness of 5 d3 with 5...d5?!, as White can is unemployed after this move, and what
then claim an advantage after 6 exd5 is more important White has already lost
£kd5 7 tth3! (this is stronger then theo¬ his social insurance; instead 10 4lxe4 h6
retical 7 0-0 0-0 8 flel after which 11 a4 4tixe4 12 dxe4 Wf6 is just equal)
8...(§hf6! leads to an unclear game) 7...*53f4 10...*e7 11 4)h2?! (White does not con¬
8 J,xf4 exf4 9 Axf7+ *f8 10 0-0 #xd3 trol the centre so the attack on the king-
11 Bel and White is much better. side is condemned to defeat; more sensi¬
6 Ab3 kal 7 ^bd2 0-0!? ble was 11 ^2 Jte6 12 Sdl with good
chances for equality) 11...2d8 12 Wf3
Ae6 13 kcl Bd6 14 Bel Wd7 15 £>dfl
£)e7 16 b3 £%6 17 lg5 <Sle8! 18 ladl
Wc6 19 £lg4 h6 20 Sxd6 £>xd6 21 ±A2
^lb5 22 Bel Bd8 and Black is slightly
better, V.Bologan-M.Adams, German
Bundesliga 1995.

Black’s plan is simple. He wants to play

...d7-d5 in one move. Therefore White
should forget about his extravagant plans
and just castle.
8 h3 d5
8...d6 transposes to the next game.
9*62
9 0-0 leaves us with two interesting op¬
tions to analyse: If 10 £>xe4 £lxe4 11 dxe4 Wi6 with
a) 9...fie8?! makes little sense as the equality.
ideal square for this rook is d8. Black 10.. .41d7!?
should focus on getting it there instead of Or lO...!^ 11 £>c4 J,e6 12 &g5 ld7
playing this kind of ‘wrist-chess’. Now 13 0-0 2ad8 with equality", but not
after 10 Sel dxe4 (if 10...h6? 11 exd5 11.. .b5?! (the white knight wants to go to
4^xd5 12 d4 with a clear advantage) 11 e3, so why provoke this?) 12 4£te3 £la5 13
4^g5 Se7 12 *?7dxe4 <53xe4 13 4^xe4 *d7 1x2 <?3b7 14 g4! (an old idea by Wilhelm
(not 13...h6? 14 «h5! *f8 and White Steinitz - White has a stable centre can
wins after 15 Jlg5! Se8 16 *§3f6+ gxf6 17 therefore start a kingside attack) 14...g6 15
l,xh6) 14 J,g5 Be8 15 th5 Sf8 16 d4 Bgl £\d6 16 g5 £\h5 17 ^Ad5 Wd8 18

41
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

‘SlxeS with a clear advantage, axb5 21 Sxa8 lxa8 22 Wxb5! Bb8 23

V.Komliakov-M.Marin, Rumanian Team Wd3 Ixb2? 24 ±a4! and White wins.
Championship 1993. 18 Hhl Wd6 19 Hdl We6 20 &f5
11 0-0 <Slc5 12 J.c2 £>e6 13 £sc4 £se7 21 Ab3 #f6 22 <Sle3 Ab7?!
me 14 g3 b5 15^e3 This allows White to simplify the posi¬
tion himself and retain his agile knight.
Better was 22...fib8 23 ^3g4 jLxg4 24
hxg4 Hfd8 25 Sxd8+ Bxd8 26 a4 and
White has some plus.
23 £>g4 ®g6

15...&g5?!
Black does not benefit from this ex¬
change. Better was 15...Wh6 16 h4 ®h5
17 4ld5 Sd8 18 a4 Adi with an unclear
game.
16«lxg5*xg5 17&g2 24 f3!?
Now White is slightly better. Here White could have played 24
£>xe5 Wxe4+ 25 '#xe4 £.xe4+ 26 f3 Af5
27 a4 and in the endgame Black is under
pressure in the centre and on the queen-
side. White has the advantage in the game
as well though.
24.. .£sc6 25 Ad5 Hfe8 26 a4! bxa4
Black has great problems organising his
pieces. He could quickly go wrong with
26.. .h5?! 27 axb5 axb5 28 ^e3 b4 29 £>f5
bxc3 30 bxc3 and White is much better
because 30...jlb6? does not work, i.e. 31
Sxa8 ±xa8 32 Wa2 33 £>h4 Wf6 34
17../th6 Jk,g5 WxgS 35 Jtxf7 and White wins.
After 17..JLe6 White puts pressure on 27 Ixa4 ±b6 28 £le3 a5 29 -53f5
the queenside with 18 a4. Unfortunately £id8
for Black he cannot simplify the position, 29...Aa6 is possible, but then 30 'ffd2
since if 18..JLxe3 19 JsLxe3 Wg6 20 axb5 h6 31 b3 Ab5 32 Ha2 Bad8 33 c4 and

42
 The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3

White retains the pressure. choose between the plan executed in the
30 Axb7 £sxb7 31 #b5 We6 32 Bc4 game with S3fl, or simply transpose to
Had8 33 Sxd8 Gxd8 34 ±e3 Games 17 and 18 by castling. This is mat¬
ter of taste as both variations are equal.

34.. .g6?
Here Black misses his chance. After 9 £>f1
34.. .c6! 35 Wz4 Jtxe3 36 Sixe3 'ifhh Against 9 We2 then 9...‘Sid?!? looks
Black has counterplay. good. Black wants to remove the white
35 J,xb6 cxb6 36 £)e3 &b7?l bishop from the b3-g8 diagonal and per¬
This loses directly. Better was 36...Jle7 haps prepare ...f7-f5. After 10 4ifl 4lc5
37 Sid5 Sb7 38 Sc7 Sxc7 39 £>xc7 Wfd6 11 ±c2 £>e6 12 g3 b5 13 &e3 Sie7 14 h4
40 4id5 and Black has some illusory b4 15 £>g5 66 16 Wh5 h6 17 ±b3 d5 18
chances for a draw. £ixd5 bxc3 19 Sixe6 JLxe6 20 bxc3 gave
37 Bc6 We7 38 Hxb6 £id6 39 Ixd6 Black equality in Kolar-Straka, Czech Re¬
1-0 public 2002. One possible continuation is
20.. .51xd5 21 exd5 JLxd5 22 JLxh6 jk.xb3
Game 13 (or 22...gxh6 23 Wg6+ with equality) 23
V.lordachescu-Z.Gyimesi Wg6 Hf7 24 axb3 Wd5 25 0-0 Wxb3 26
Rumania 2004 WtA Sd8 27 2xa6 ±b6 28 Ha8 Bxa8 29
Wxa8+ Hf8 30 We4 and it is White who
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 &c6 3 J,c4 Ac5 4 c3 keeps the balance.
Sif6 5 d3 a6!? 6 Ab3 d6 9.. .d5!?
Black chooses a different strategy This is not illogical. White has played
based on a solid centre and slow devel¬ the time-consuming 4£}fl and Black wants
opment. In many ways this can be com¬ to exploit this.
pared to the last two games of this chap¬ 10 We2 Se8 11 ±g5 dxe4 12 dxe4
ter, if it was not for White delaying cas- ±e6 13Sd1 We7 14£le3
ding. Also after 14 Sig3 Axb3 15 axb3 We6
7 h3 i.a7 8 Slbd2 0-0 16 0-0 h6 17 Axf6 Wx£6 Black has
Another critical position. White has to achieved equality.

43
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

14.. .Axe3 15 #xe3 J,xb3 16 axb3 26 c4

#e6 17 ±xf6 White could also try 26 We7!?, but af¬
If 17 0-0 43h5! 18 43d2 h6 19 J,h4 ter 26...Sf7 27 #’e6 Wxc6 28 fxe6 2xd7
43f4 20 J,g3 43115 Black has achieved full 29 Sxd7 b6 it is White who needs to
equality. draw, which he can manage by 30 e7 He8
17.. .#xf6 18 0-0 We6 31 ffxc732 Bb7 with equality.
26.. .*h8 27 21 d3 #xb2 28 Hg3 Sg8
29 <4h2
Or 29 We7 fell 30 9t?h2 l'f4 31 4?gl
fell 32 &h2 «ff4 with an equal posi¬
tion.
29.. .®b6 30 #e7 #xf2 31 flxg7
«f4+

In a position like this a draw is the

natural result.
19 Sd5 f6 20 Sfdl £>e7 21 2d7
#xb3 22 43h4

32 &h1
White could have set a trap with 32
%1 #e3+ 33 *fl Wc\+ 34 *f2 '®c2+
35 4?g3, with the idea of 35...®xf5?? 36
<^>h4!! and White wins, a fantastic idea
mentioned by Gyimesi. Instead, after
35.. .Wxc4 36 *h2 Wf4+ Black draws.
32.. .'irf1 + 33 *h2 tff4+ 34 <*h1
*f1+ '/2-V*
22.. .fiac8
If Black takes another pawn with Game 14
22.. .Wxb2, White continues 23 43f5 43xf5 L.Yudasin-A.Lenderman
24 exf5 Wa3 25 2xc7 2e7 26 Hbh lxc7 Philadelphia 2004
27 1Srxc7 b5 28 Hd7 and his counterplay
is good enough for a draw. 1 e4 e5 2 43f3 43c6 3 ±c4 J,c5 4 c3
23 43f5 43xf5 24 exf5 If8 25 #c5 h6 43f6 5 b4 J.b6 6 d3 d6 7 a4

44
 The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3

S.Skembris, Beersheba 1993) 16 ®d4 fie8

17 lg5 lc5 18 lxf6 Wxf6 19 Wfxf6
gxf6 20 Sfel £le5 with equality.
9.. .0-0 10 4lbd2
10 lg5?! <S3g6 11 -5364 4?h8 12 £)xg6+
fxg6! is a useful trick to remember. We
learn that we should recapture towards
the centre in the middlegame, but when
you see an attacking chance, you should
not hesitate to use it. After 13 le3 c6 14
^e2 d5 Black has an initiative.
10.. Hg6 11 ±b3
This assault should not be dangerous 11 la3?! would be a mistake, as Black
for Black. The attack on the a- and b-files can exploit the absence of the bishop
is happening in too narrow an area to from the kingside with 11...^3h5 12 d4
create serious problems for Black. And <5)hf4 13 dxe5, and now the aggressive
what is more important, White does not 13.. .1g4! is strongest.
have full stability and control over his
centre, which offers Black good chances
for counterplay exacdy there.
7...a5
5 d3 d6 6 b4 Ab6 7 a4 a5 is the usual
move order to reach this position. Yu-
dasin chose a slighdy different sequence
to avoid the possibility of 5...a6, discour¬
aging b2-b4, as the bishop can then re¬
treat to a7 in one go.
8 b5 ®e7
8...&b8I? is less popular, though still
good, e.g. 9 0-0 0-0 10 ±g5 h6 11 J,h4 White has the following discouraging
g5 12 JLg3 J,g4 and the position is equal opportunities:
according to Unzicker. a) 14 Wc2 Wd7 15 $hl lxf3 16 ^xfi
9 0-0 Wg4 17 £3el ^xe5 18 B Wh4 19 g3 Wh3
Against 9 <5)bd2, 9...c6! achieves equal¬ and Black had an attack in V.Cordeiro-
ity directly, based on 10 bxc6 bxc6 11 0-0 J.Soberano, correspondence 1996.
0-0 12 Aa3 Sb8 13 ±b3 £lg6 and Black b) 14 g3 4*)xe5 15 gxf4 IxB 16 <53xf3
is alright. The solid 9...0-0 is also fine, e.g. £W 17 WdS £lxa3 18 Bxa3 Wf6 19 f5
10 jta2 &g6 11 £k4 1x5 12 0-0 le6 13 g6 20 #xb7 gxf5 21 c4 *h8 22 <3?hl
d4 exd4 14 cxd4 lb4 15 d5 ld7! (infe¬ Bae8 23 exf5 Bg8 and Black was much
rior is 15...1g4 16 h3 IxB 17 Wxfi and better in the top level game, C.Lutz-
White was slightly better in L.Psakhis- A.Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

45
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

c) 14 exd6 cxd6 15 Wb3 is probably picious about this, but maybe it is worth a
White’s best option, though after 15...1Brf6 go?
Black has perfect compensation for the 12 £>c4 d5 13 exd5 £ixd5 14 #c2
pawn. A simple alternative here was 14
£lxb6!? cxb6 15 4^g5 ^3gf4 16 0\xc6
&\xe6 17 Jla3 and White is better. But
Yudasin was no doubt looking forward to
skating around on the light squares.
14...£sdf4 15 Axf4 ±xc4 16 ±xc4
£>xf4

11.. .±e6?!
Seemingly a harmless developing
move, but in reality the position is sharper
than it appears at first sight. White is
coming round with his knight, causing
Black real concerns, and all Black can
think of is this simple automatic move, 17 g3?!
with no plan or idea behind it. Or at least This is slighdy inaccurate. White is still
that’s what it looks like. Maybe Black was better after the text move, but more ener¬
surprised by the troubles he faced later getic was 17 Sfel! 2e8 18 d4 exd4 19
on, in the middlegame with opposite- Sxe8+ ®xe8 20 Sel and Black is in trou¬
coloured bishops. ble. After the only move 20...^fS (if
Instead: 20.. .£>e6 21 cxd4 Wd7 22 Wf5 and White
a) ll...d5!? directly could be an alterna¬ is much better) 21 Wf5 <$ie6 22 JLxe6
tive. After something like 12 Aa3 Be8 13 fxe6 23 Wxe6+ Wf7 24 We4 Hd8 (not
exd5 £lxd5 14 4tlc4 h6 Black is alright, 24.. .dxc3? 25 &g5H Wx£2+ 26 <£hl g6 27
e.g. 15 g3 Jlg4 16 £ld6 cxd6 17 Jtxd5 Ve7 and White wins) 25 cxd4 White has
#d7 etc. a clear advantage.
b) ll...c6 is also better, when the posi¬ 17.. .£sg6 18 We2 #d6 19 We4 c6 20
tion after 12 bxc6 bxc6 13 d4 Jlg4 14 Sabi Sab8 21 Wf5 Wf6?!
Wc2 should be equal. Then Black can try 21..Jtd8! was necessary; after 22 bxc6
14.. .41f4!? 15 dxe5 dxe5 16 4tlxe5 Ae2 17 bxc6 23 Ixb8 Wxb8 24 d4 ±f6 White is
&d£3 <S36h5 18 lei AxB 19 £>xf3 »d7 better, but Black can hold the position.
when he has compensation for the pawn 22 Wh5
according to Greenfeld. I am a little sus¬ Or 22 Wxf6 gxf6 23 d4 and White is

46
 The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3

much better. But White wants to keep the

queens and the pressure on.
22.. .h6 23 <£id2 *h7 24 £le4 #e7 25
#f5 #c7 26 #h5 #e7 27 h4 £sh8 28
#f5+ g6??
A forgivable blunder, but also after
28.. .<st?g8 29 <4>g2 White has a clear advan¬
tage.

I do not like this move too much. It is

hard to see what good the queen is doing
on b3 this early on, and later it might very
well find itself better placed somewhere
else. Simpler is 8 0-0 0-0 9 a5 JLa7, when
we have a branching;
a) 10 £lbd2 Zhel 11 Ab3 <5hg6 12 £tc4
29 #d7! Ad8 2e8 13 2el h6 was played in C.Lutz-
The point is 29...#xd7 30 £tf6+ &g7 P.Leko, Cap d’Agde 1994, and now 14
31 ^xd7 and White wins. £3e3 <Slf4 15 2b 1 gives White some ad¬
30 bxc6 #xd7 31 cxd7 4>g7 32 fib5 vantage.
1-0 b) 10 2el h6 11 &bd2! (11 h3 is only
required in this structure if you want to
Game 15 play d3-d4; here Black can reply 11...4tlh5!
V.Nevednichy-Z.Gyimesi 12 d4 #65 13 Jk.e3 <2hf4 with unclear play,
Miskolc 2004 G.Timoshenko-P.Jaracz, Koszalin 1999)
11.. .^e7 12 4lfl £lg6 13 &g3 and White
1 e4 e5 2 £tf3 £sc6 3 J.c4 ±,c5 4 b4 is slighdy better.
Jlb6 5 a4 a6 6 c3 ®f6 7 d3 d6 8 Ag5?! is weaker, as it can be strongly
This time the Italian Game has taken a met by 8...h6! 9 JLh4 g5, where Black
short trip through the Evans Gambit De¬ exploits the fact that he has not yet cas-
clined. Another move order can be seen ded kingside. After 10 jtg3 4lh5 11 h4 g4
in the previous game. By the standard 12 £3h2 2g8 13 <53 fl #65 Black was
route, 4 c3 4*3f6 5 d3 d6 6 b4 Jk,b6 7 a4, much better in J.Timman-J.Smejkal, Wijk
the move here would have been 7...a6?!, aan Zee 1975.
which in my opinion is weaker than 7..a5. 8.. .0-0
Black should not allow White to occupy 8...#e7 9 0-0 a5!? is also interesting.
all this space on the queenside. This seems reasonable even with a lost

47
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

tempo (,..;i7-a6 ;l5), as the white queen solved this with an imaginative idea...
might not be too well placed on b3 here.
After 10 b5 £3d8 11 <53bd2 0-0 we have
an unclear game, though White can avoid
it by flicking in 9 a5!?.
9 a5 JLa7 10 0-0 <S3e7 11 <?3g5
Also after 11 J,e3 c6!? 12 l,xa7 Sxa7
13 #c2 would White have no advantage.
11...*e8 12 Ae3 c6 13 ±xa7 Hxa7
14 d4

22.. .b5!! 23 axb6

White needs to test Black’s idea. After
23 Sfel He7 24 He3 Ixe3 25 fxe3 We6
26 <53b3 He8 27 Bel f5 Black is at least
slightly better.
23.. .2e7!
White can surely still save the game,
but now it is very difficult.
24 Sfcl *g7
14.. .exd4
Here Black can sharpen the game with
14.. .^3g6!? 15 dxe5 <?3xe5 16 f4 <53xc4 17
®xc4 h6 18 1fird4 Ha8 19 e5 with an un¬
clear position.
15 cxd4 h6 16 e5 hxg5 17 exf6 gxf6
18 <S3d2 d5 19 J.d3 <53g6 20 Wc2 <5if4
21 g3?!
White is too optimistic here, hoping his
structure will prove superior. The simple
21 fifel ®d7 22 Ie3 was better, when
the position is unclear.
21 ...<23xd3 22fcd3 25 ®f1?
Here it looks as if White is much bet¬ This is too passive. White needs some
ter. His main plan is to play a game of counterplay, which could be obtained
hide and seek and end up torturing Black with 25 <531)3!, even though after 25...'®d7
in a gruelling ending. Black is faced with 26 53c5 Wh3 27 fTl #h5 28 £3xa6 (28
the question of how to defend the b7- £3!?, with the idea of ‘i§’f2, is probably
pawn and get the Sa7 into play. He much better and should give White some

48
 The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3

chances) 28...fih8 29 1Brg2 Jlh3 30 g4! £)f6 5 d3 d6 6 c3 0-0

I,xg4 31 £3c5 1,0 32 %3 f5 33 £id3 This is main position for the 5 d3
le4 34 <§3f4 ®h4 Black’s attack is very variation. Here Black cannot really refrain
unpleasant. from castling. The old idea of 6...a6 7
25.. .1^7 26 *c3 lb3 la7 8 £\bd2 h6?! intending ...g7-g5
Also after 26 Bel fixel 27 Bxel ®b7 has one major defect: Black will not man¬
28 ^e3 Wxb6 29 Vc3 ld7 30 Bal Bb8 age to create an attack, but instead will
31 4)c2 lf5 32 4k3 le4 Black would be just weaken his own position, e.g. 9 Bel
much better. g5 10 <53fl g4 11 4)3d2 £>h5 12 £}c4 £>f4
26.. .Bfe8! 27 #xc6 Wh3 13 Ae3 b5 14 £k3 fT6 15 J,d5 J,d7 16
§Pc2 Jlxe3 17 ^)cxe3 h5 18 a4 and White
had the advantage in D.King-V.Hort,
Dortmund 1988.
7 a4

28#c3
White cannot play 28 b5? because of
28.. .1f5! 29 b7 (or 29 bxa6 Jfc.e4)
29.. .1e4 30 f3 IxB 31 Sc2 Be2 and
Black wins. This is a harmless sideline which gives
28.. .!g4 29 b7 le2 30 Bc2 Bxb7 Black good chances.
31 Bxe2? 7.. .a6
White is falling over, but after 31 f3 7...a5!? is also fine, e.g. 8 4lbd2 jLa7 9
Bbe7 Black would also be close to win¬ Ab3 ‘SlhS 10 ^3c4 Wf6 11 ^fxe5 <$!)xe5
ning. 12 <5)xe5 Wxe5 13 d4 WxtA 14 ttdi5
31 ...2xe2 32 lxa6 0-1 Jte6 with equality, J.Speelman-B.Gulko,
Since Black wins after both 32...Hrf5 and Novi Sad Olympiad 1990.
32.. .1c7. 8 4ibd2
White can exchange the strong dark-
Game 16 squared bishop with 8 JK,e3, but after
S.Movsesian-A.Morozevich 8.. .Axe3 9 fxe3 d5 Black should be OK,
Prague (rapid) 2002 e.g. 10 exd5 £>xd5 11 Wc2 Jlc6 12 4Gxl2
#e7 13 Ab3 Bae8 14 «T2 f5 15 Bael
1 e4 e5 2 <£sf3 &c6 3 lc4 !c5 4 0-0 with unclear play in D.Barua-G.Milos,

49
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Moscow Olympiad 1994. Wfg6 and Black is at least slightly better,

8...I,a7 D.Barua-M.Adams, Bayswater 1989.
b) 13 d4? fxe4 14 Hxe4 d5 15 Ag5 and
now L.Psakhis-J.Hector, Palma de Mal¬
lorca 1989, continued 15...dxe4? 16 JsLxdB
flxd8 17 4f)g5 exd4 18 cxd4 gxd4 19
®e2 Af5 with an unclear game. For
some strange reason Black feared taking
the pieces. I have checked this position
with Frit% 8 for hours, and even though
we are talking about very strong players, I
cannot believe that White’s compensation
is anything but an illusion after 15,..Wd7
16 £»xe5 <Sixe5 17 gxe5 dxc4 18 Axh6
9 Bel gxh6 19#e2#d6.
9 a5 £te7 is a standard plan to remem¬ 13...gxh6 14 exf5 ±xf5 15 ld5 Ag6
ber. It is a very good way to get some 16 Wd2 #f6 17 <£)g3 #f4 18 *xf4
attacking chances as Black. Now after 10 Sxf4
gel 11 &fl le8 12 Ab3 h6 13
Ae3 Ae6 the position is equal.
In the game Black finds another way to
create attacking chances.
9...£ig4! 10 Se2 *h8 11 h3 £>h6 12
&f1 f 5!

The position is more or less equal.

White has a better pawn structure, while
Black has the two bishops and control
over two half-open files. In positions like
this I usually prefer Black for practical
reasons, simply because it is easier to play
A critical position. with the initiative than against it.
13 lxh6 19 J.e4?!
This is probably the soundest decision White goes wrong straight away! Better
in this position. White has also tried: was 19 ^3e4!? Ah5 20 4tied2 Saf8 21 b4
a) 13 ex£5?! -§3xf5 14 Ag5 '®e8 15 d4 £\d8 22 b5 c6 23 bxc6 bxc6 24 Ac4 a5

50
 The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3

25 fibl with an unclear game. 28 2e3 sfef8 29 fte2 2f7 30 £>c3

19...Af7 Ac4 31 g4 h5 32 st?g3
The tables have turned. It is White who
has some chances to play for the win.
32.. .flb4 33f4h4+?!
A very risky idea, which gambles with
life and death, and there is no middle
ground to be found after it. But Moro-
zevich likes to gamble like this, especially
when time trouble is approaching.
After the saner 33...hxg4 34 hxg4 JLb3
Black has good drawing chances.
34'*f3 .fi.fi 35 Sell fi,c4
If 35... fi.xh3 36 Shi and White wins.
20 ±xc6 36 f5 Ab3 37 4>f4
White opens another file for Black, but Here I think 37 Se4!P was stronger.
this was the consequence of the previous After 37...fi.xa4 38 £3xa4 Sxa4 39 d5
move. Sxe4 40 &xe4 Se7+ 41 *f4 cxd5 42
20...bxc6 21 d4Hg8 2xd5 Se2 43 Sxa5 Sxb2 44 Sa7 White
Even stronger was 21...exd4 22 cxd4 has some winning chances. Of course this
i.xd4 23 ^xd4 Sxd4 24 Be7 i-d5 25 is a very difficult line to enter if you are
Sxc7 Sf8 with the initiative. short of time, which I think Movsesian
22 &h2 exd4 23 &xd4 Axd4 24 probably was.
cxd4 37.. .C5 38 -4?g5 cxd4?!
Simpler was 38...Sxd4 39 Sde2 lsl?g7
40 2e7 h6+ 41 <4>xh4 Sd2 42 Sle2 Sxe2
43 Sxe2 d5 where Black has counterplay.
39 ®e4 Sb8 40 Bxd4 Be8

24...i.d5?
Black seems to have missed 24...Hxd4
25 4tlf5 jfc.d5!, when after 26 g4 flf4! he
keeps the pressure on.
25 fldl a5 26 f3 Sb8 27 Sdd2 ti?g8

51
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

This happens so often. Either White Normally we would reach this posi¬
made an extra move because he was un¬ tions via the move order 3....fi,c5 4 c3
sure if he had made the time control at £)f6 5 d3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 ±b3 a6 8 <53bd2
move 40, or he did not take two minutes Aa7.
rest to let the emotions cool after time 9 h3 ±e6
trouble. After something like 41 2e3 Jlc2
42 2e2 c5 43 Sxc2 cxd4 44 4\xd6 Sg7+
45 ,i?xh4 2d8 46 *53e4 fie7 47 <£k:5 only
White can win, though Black has decent
drawing chances as well.
41.. .1fe7 42 2e3 J,f7 43 Bc3 Bxe4
44 Bxe4 Bxe4 45 Bxc7
A bishop is a bishop. White has to put
his head on the block now.
45.. .2e7 46 flc8+ Ae8 47 Af6 d5
48 g5 d4 49 g6 d3 50 Sd8 Bd7 51
g7+ Bxg7 52 2xd3 Bg3 53 Bd4
flxh3 54 *g5 Bb3 55 Bxh4 0-1 10 Bel
Keeping the bishop with 10 Ac2!? is
Game 17 the most dangerous idea. Black’s light-
S.Vysochin-J.KIovans squared bishop has no real scope, and
Cappelle la Grande 2005 while the white bishop might also seem
buried at the moment, it can later prove
1 e4 e5 2 &f3 £ic6 3 i.c4 ^3f6 4 d3 to be quite strong. Now we have the fol¬
lc5 5 c3 a6 6 0-0 d6 7 !b3 lowing practical examples:
The manoeuvre ^.c4-b3 is standard in a) 10...d5 11 flel dxe4 12 dxe4 £lh5 13
this position. Now the game is more or £lfl ®xdl 14 Sxdl 2ad8 15 JLe3 f6 16
less reminiscent of the Ruy Lopez. Jlxa7 £lxa7 17 ^3e3 £)f4 18 h4! and
7.. .Aa7 8abd2 0-0 White was slighdy better, A.Karpov-
V.Korchnoi, Merano match 1981.
b) 10...h6 11 flel £le7 12 d4 %5 13
£tfl c6 14 £3g3 2e8!? 15 0X5 Wc7 16
l.e3 d5! 17 exd5 (if 17 £lxe5 dxe4 18
^3xg6 Jtxf5 19 JLf4 Wb6 20 £le5 #xb2
and Black is a little better, H.Hamdouchi-
F.Braga, Mancha Real 2000) 17...<5lxd5!
(if 17..Jhtd5? 18 4lxe5 43xe5 19 Jtf4 and
White has a clear advantage) 18 Jtd2
J,xf5 19 J.xf5 exd4 20 £\xd4 J,xd4 21
cxd4 with an unclear game.
10...Be8

52
 The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3

Black can also take the chance to ex¬ Jld5 21 Wh7 g5 and Black is much bet¬
change bishops with 10..Jtxb3 11 *xb3 ter, but after 18 4Axf6+! *xf6 19 lfe4
*d7 12 &fl (not 12 *xb7P? flfbS 13 White has some threats and probably the
*xa6 JLxf2+ and wins) 12...h6 13 ^3g3 advantage too; e.g. 19...dxc3 20 bxc3
Ife8 14 <Sih4 d5 15 £M5 dxe4 16 dxe4 *xc3 21 *h7+ <i>f8 22 Ad2 *c5 23
4ia5 and Black is at least equal, J.Hjart- Ae4! with a very strong initiative for the
arson-A.Aleksandrov, Groningen 1997. pawn.
18 4ixf6+ *xf6 19 J.xf5 #xf5 20
dxe5 Sad8 21 ±e3 Axe3 22 #xe3
White retains the pawn and has great
winning chances.
22...fld5 23 a4 b4
Or 23...£>xe5 24 £>d4 *d7 25 axb5
axb5 26 f4 c5 27 £lb3 and White wins.
24 lacl bxc3 25 bxc3 Wd7 26 c4
Sd3 27 We4 £ib4 28 c5 a5

11 £if1 h6 12£ig3 d5 13*e2&a5

Black wants to keep the game compli¬
cated, but it is White who turns out to be
better off.
14 Aa4 b5 15 !c2 £sc6 16 d4 dxe4
17^xe4

29 c6?
A tactical mistake. Here the elegant 29
e6! *xe6 30 *b7 *c8 31 *b5 Hxel+ 32
flxel would leave White close to winning.
29.. .*d5 30 Wf5
After 30 *xd5 Bxd5 31 He3 fle6 32
Hec3 White does not have not real win¬
ning chances.
30"..fie6 31 Wg4 Ixc6?
17.. .±f5?! Black misses his chance. After
This just drops a pawn. Instead 31.. .Bxf3! 32 *xf3 *xf3 33 gxf3 <5id3 34
17.. .exd4! looks good to start with, since f4 ‘Sixel 35 Bxel Sxc6 36 Se4 fib6 37
if 18 *d3 -4>f8 19 £>xf6 ttidti 20 <td2 <4?g2 the draw is certain.

53
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

32 Bxc6 #xc6 33 #08+ *h7 34 9...£se7!?

Wf5+ #g6 35 Iff 4? Black is aiming his knights towards f4,
Stronger was 35 Wxg6+ fxg6 (if which is a perfecdy acceptable plan. Also
35.. .*xg6? 36 e6 fxe6 37 £>e5+ &f6 38 good here is 9...h6 10 fiel le6 11 £lfl
^lxd3 ^xd3 39 Hdl and White wins) 36 fie8 12 le3 lxb3 (or 12,..d5 13 lxa7
e6 Sd8 37 <5114 and White has great win¬ fixa7 14 exd5 lxd5 15 lxd5 #xd5 16
ning chances. 4De3 Wc5 17 d4 exd4 18 cxd4
35.. .<£sd5 36 We4 c6 37 £ih4 1-0 S.Fedorchuk-L.Vajda, Bar 2005, and now
White probably won on time, since af¬ after 18...Wd6 Black keeps the balance)
ter 37...Wxe4 38 Bxe4 4k3 Black is 13 axb3 lxe3 14 £\xe3 Wd7 15 £)h4 d5
slightly better. with equality in G.Kaidanov-V.Malaniuk,
Lucerne 1997.
Game 18 10 fiel £sg6 11 £>f1 £ih5 12 d4
R. Felgaer-J .Hector &hf4 13 £lg3
Copenhagen 2002

1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £ic6 3 ±c4 £rf6 4 d3

J.c5 5 c3 a6 6 0-0 Aa7 7 J.b3 d6 8
4tod2 0-0 9 h3
After 9 £)c4 Black can play similarly to
the current game with 9...£k7 10 Jkg5
<^g6 11 &h4 ^h8! 12 a4 h6 13 £ixg6+
fxg6! 14 l.e3 <§)h5 15 d4 with an unclear
position in E.Torre-LRausis, Yerevan
Olympiad 1996. Here I have analysed
15.. .£)f4!? with the following idea: 16
l.xf4 Sxf4 17 dxe5 ®g5! 18 ®d3 1x6 13...1H6?
19 exd6 Saf8! when Black has a strong This is actually quite a common mis¬
attack because of 20 d7? Ixd7!. take, but then White’s idea is quite
tricky...
Black has naturally tried other moves
here. One game went lS.-We??! 14 le3
fld8 15 1x2 h6 16 ®tf5 1T6 17 g3! £>e6
18 £>h2 Se8 19 Wh5 and White had an
attack in V.Kramnik-D.Campora, Mos¬
cow 1989.
In my opinion the simplest option for
Black is safe development with 13...1d7
14 4tlf5 fie8, when I do not see how
White can get an advantage, e.g. 15 dxe5
dxe5 16 1x3 with equality.

54
 The Italian Regretted: White Plays 5 d3

14 £ih5! *e7 15 Axf4 £ixf4 16 £>xf4 A.Mikhalevski, Tel Aviv 2001.

exf4 ^...Wfe 18 e5 dxe5 19 Sxe5 c6 20
Sael h6 21 11e4 Ab8 22 Ixf4

It is easy to compare White’s situation

here with how a donkey might feel when 22...Wg6
it has in front of it a tray with oats and After 22...JLxe5 White will not under¬
another with hay. The main problem is to take any adventures, but simply continue
decide which one will taste better. 23 £lxe5! Wg5 24 h4 Wd8 25 £)xf7 We7
17 #d2 26 <S3xh6+ ih7 27 4£)f7 with a winning
Also strong is 17 e5!? JLe6 18 exd6 position.
Wxd6 19 ±xe6 fxe6 20 H>3 ffd5 21 23 Bxf7 Sxf7 24 He7 #b1 + 25 ®e1
Sxe6 Wxb3 22 axb3 and White has a Af4 26 We2 Af5 27 Bxf7 ^h8 28 g4
technically winning position, E.Alekseev- ±d3 29 #xd3 Wxel + 30 *g2 1-0

55
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Summary
As we have seen, Black has two move orders at his disposal, and although neither of
them is inferior, 5...a6!P does have the advantage of limiting White’s options. For his
part. White does not have to use the move order with 5 d3, but can start with 5 t»4!P.
This queenside expansion does not strike me as dangerous, but as in most positions, it
is possible for Black to play badly and lose.
All in all White can play these variations in different ways, but at the end of the day
Black has a sound, solid position, and when White does not try to put pressure on it
straight away, he fails to utilise the advantage of the first move. (If you only start to
apply pressure at move 15, the difference between who moved first will have become
so small that in practice it is virtually gone). Black should have a comfortable life in
these lines.

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 <§lc6 3 i.c4 Ac5 4 c3 &f6 5 d3

5 b4 Ab6 6 d3 d6 7 a4 (D)
7.. .a5 — Game 14
7.. .a6 — Game 15
5.. .d6
5.. .a6 6 Ab3 ±a7 7 <Slbd2 0-0 8 h3
8.. .d5 - Game 12
8.. .d6 9 £\fl d5 - Game 13
6 0-0
6b4 Ab6-5b4
6.. .0.0 (D) 7±b3
7 a4 — Game 16
7.. .a6 8 £lbd2 Aa7 9 h3 (D)
9.. .J,e6 - Game 17
9.. .4.e7 — Game 18

7 a4 6...0-0 9h3

56
 or 4 si
CHAPTER FIVE | |±± it
141.
It i|
....
. m. m
The Evans Gambit Declined

In the second part of this book we will come. Even Garry Kasparov found the
look at the Evans Gambit, which arises opening worth playing a few times, and
after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 4ic6 3 has used to beat none other than Anand.
±c4 J.c5 4 b4!? In this chapter we shall see his game
against a former Dutch No.l, Jeroen
Piket, who at the dme of the game was
continually improving, with good chances
of reaching the world’s elite. These days,
however, he has left chess for the less
demanding business of business.
The main move in this chapter is
4.. .jtb6, which is seen in the first five
games, while in Game 24 we will give a
quick glance at the random-looking
4.. .d5!?.

This romantic gambit has proven to be Game 19

greatly resilient to modern technolog)', E.Sveshnikov-Kir.Georgiev
and while it is not generally thought of as Elista 1998
a path to advantage in the 21st century, it
clearly has not been refuted either. The 1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 <$ic6 3 ±c4 ±c5 4 b4
idea is to gain momentum for opening This brilliant attacking opening was
the centre, even at the cost of a pawn or invented to make men understand that
two. For this reason the line has always chess is a gift from God,’ wrote Saviely
attracted aggressive players and will Tartakower. The inventor of the gambit,
probably continue to do so in the years to William Davies Evans, was born on the

57
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

27th January 1790 in Pembrokeshire, White can achieve an opening advantage

South Wales. From 1804 he served in the by transposing to the notes to Game 15
navy, and in 1819 reached the rank of from Chapter 4 (see the notes to move 6
captain. In 1824 Evans took command of below).
the steamer ‘Oakland’, which carried let¬ After the more passive 4...JaLe7 5 b5
ters and passengers between England and £>a5 6 Ae2 £lf6 7 £lc3, N.Minev-
Ireland. Evans was introduced to chess in Atanasov, Bulgaria 1950, White is at least
1818, and very quickly became a strong slightly better because of the weak posi¬
player. In the 1820s he was one of best in tion of the knight on a5.
London. He beat Alexander McDonnell,
John Cochrane and several others among
the strongest players of the day. Evans
‘invented’ his gambit on a long haul on
the sea in 1824, though he did not have a
chance to play it in an actual game before
1827 against McDonnell.
The first mention of the ‘Evans Gam¬
bit’ in print is found in Levison’s Lessons
on the Game of Chess from 1832. It is not
unfair to say that the Evans Gambit was
the Ruy Lopez of the 19th century. It was
simply one of the most popular openings,
if not the most popular. At the turn of the This is the standard move in this posi¬
century, however, the Evans Gambit dis¬ tion. White expands on the queenside,
appeared from top chess for almost 100 relying on the fact that 5...4bxb4 does not
years. First of all, because people became work, since after 6 a5 JLc5 7 c3 £)c6 8
tired of it and wanted to explore new 0-0 White is much better; Black has great
paths. Secondly, because strong defensive problems developing and 9 d4 will come
players, such as World Champions with great force.
Wilhelm Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker, 5...a6
found ways for Black to get a good game This is the main move. In Game 22 we
against 4 b4!?. will look at 5...a5, which also seems to
Nevertheless, in the 21st century the give a slight advantage for White. The
Evans has proven to be quite resilient to safest way to gain an edge now is 6 a5,
the threats presented to different roman¬ but it is hard to continue like this when
tic gambits by the silicon monsters. playing a gambit.
4...J,b6!? 6 ib2!?
Black refuses the challenge and keeps The usual move here, 6 4tlc3, can be seen
his bishop well placed. Though to some in the next two games. Besides these
extent a strategy for wimps, it cannot be White has also tried:
automatically ignored. As far as I can see a) 6 0-0 d6 7 a5 &a7 8 b5 axb5 9 ±xb5

58
 The Evans Gambit Declined

<§3ge7 10 d4 exd4 11 *Slxd4 0-0 12 4?3xc6 natural, and now White should play 13 e5!
bxc6 13 Jk,d3 4?3g6, F.Marshall- dxe5 14 £3xe5 Jle6 15 jlxe6 Wxc6 16
R.Teichmann, Hamburg 1910, and now 0-0 £¥6 17 lei 0-0 18 4*3d3 when White
14 rA)hl followed by f2-f4 is equal accord¬ is slighdy better according to Tartakower.
ing to Matsukevich. However, 6 0-0 can b) 9...4*3d4! is my preference.
transpose to the lines below, so it is not at
all stupid.
b) 6 a5 JLa7 when we have two op¬
tions:
bl) 7 b5 does not inspire awe. After
7.. .axb5 8 J>xb5 Black has a wide range
of good moves. For instance 8...^3ge7
followed by ...d6 looks sound. However, I
have looked a little bit on sharper lines
such as 8...£¥6 9 ±a3?! (White can
probably still keep the balance, but obvi¬
ously he will have greater ambitions
around here) 9...<S3xe4 10 We2 Axf2+! 11 White cannot prove an advantage now:
*fl f5 12 c3 (if 12 d3 43d4 13 £kd4 bl) 10 J.xd4 exd4 11 0-0 (if 11 c3P!
i.xd4 14 Sa2 £k3 15 <S¥c3 Axc3 16 d4 4«¥6 12 d3 0-0 13 0-0 d5 14 exd5 ±g4
Wf6 and Black wins) 12...Exa5 13 d3 and Black is slightly better) 1 l...£¥6 12 d3
Hxb5 14 dxe4 Sxbl+ 15 Sxbl JLb6 16 0-0 13 4*3bd2 d5 and Black is at least
exf5 d6 and Black is much better. equal.
b2) 7 c3! 4¥6 8 d3 is the correct strat¬ b2) 10 £3xd4 exd4 11 c3 (or 11 0-0
egy. In this kind of position White has a <£¥6 12 d3 0-0 13 £M2 d5 with equality in
good chance for achieving a slight edge if J.Palkovi-P.Lukacs, Budapest 1996)
he develops normally and keeps the ll...£¥6! 12 0-0 0-0 13 cxd4 (13 d3 d5! 14
queen away from b3 (see Game 15 in the exd5 4tfa:d5 15 Wf3 £¥6 16 cxd4 J.xd4 is
previous chapter for details). Then 8...d6 also equal) 13...4lxe4 14 4*3c3 <£¥6 15
9 Wb3 (Hey, what did I just say?!) 9...0-0 £3a4 JLa7 16 Wb3 d5 with equality,
10 ±g5 h6 11 J,h4 Wei 12 0-0 JLe6 13 R.Nystrom-C.Hartman, Stockholm 1993.
<§3bd2 g5 14 Jtg3 4*3115 15 b5 axb5 16 10ia2
ttxb5 was played in E.Sveshnikov- This should not give White an advan¬
Z.Gyimesi, Vienna 1996, and now after tage. The bishop does not look well
16.. .flfb8 Black keeps the balance. As I placed out here. Instead of trying for dy¬
said, I dislike 9 Wb3 for White. namics, White could play against the £3a5.
6.. .d6 7 b5 axb5 8 axb5 Ixal 9 Sveshnikov is the great expert of this line
Jbcal 4la5 and later he played 10 Jte2!?, with the
Black also has some alternatives here: game E.Sveshnikov-A.Yashtylov, St. Pe¬
a) 9...<$lb8 looks passive, e.g. 10 d4 tersburg 2000, continuing 10...<?¥6 11
exd4 11 Axd4 Jtxd4 12 'Brxd4 Wt6 is 4*3c3 0-0 12 0-0 J.g4 13 d3 Wdl 14 Wdl

59
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

J.c5 15 h3 ±xf3 16 J,x£3 b6 17 flbl with 13 d3 J,g4 14 h3 l.xf3 15 Wxf3

±d4 18 £\d5 £ixd5 19 J.xd4 <5lf6 20 Jtd4 16 &)c2 Jlxal 17 fixal and position
J,c3 ^b7 21 J,e2 and White has a slight is more or less equal.
enduring advantage which could last until 13.. .exd4 14 £ixd4 le8 15 Wd3
the end of the world. White needs to be careful. 15 ttel is
met strongly with 15...4!3g4! 16 4f)a4 Wh4!
when Black ’will have a very strong attack
for the piece. White might be able to sur¬
vive it, but it will not be graceful, and
Black will eat enough pawns on his way
to secure his retirement in an at least even
ending.
15.. .We7 16£)f3
Winning the two bishops with 16
43f5?! ilxf5 17 exf5 might be tempting,
but after 17...d5! Black is slightly better as
the white bishop is simply shut out.
10.. . £>f6 16.. .J.e6 17 J.xe6 Wxe6 18 £>a4!
Black should probably prefer 10...Ag4,
when after 11 d3 £>f6 12 0-0 0-0 13 h3
jte6! or 13...Ah5!? he would be doing
just fine. However, he should avoid
13.. .±d7?! 14 £k3 We8 15 Wbl <£>h8?!
(instead 15...jk.c5, but White still has the
advantage) 16 <§3a4! and White was much
better, B.Kostic-F.Yates, Rotterdam 1921.
11 £>c3 0-0 12 0-0 c6

18...J,d8!
Black could easily get himself into
trouble. 18...J.a7? is met strongly by 19
b6 l.b8 20 ±xf6 Wxf6 21 £\c3 Wd8 22
2b 1 and White is much better as Black
cannot get his bishop into play without
suffering serious structural or material
damage.
19 e5 dxe5 20 4lxe5
Also 20 ±xc5 cxb5 21 Wxb5 Wc6 22
Wh ite can also play more cautiously Sbl 4(k4 23 Ad4 £ia.3 24 Wxc6 bxc6 25

60
 The Evans Gambit Declined

fib8 Ae7 26 Hxe8+ *5lxe8 leads to equal¬ Ie7 38 Ib2 lc7 39 Hb5 4>h6 40
ity. *h3 4>g7 41 *h4 *g6 42 *h3 *g7
20.. .J.C7 21 4lc5?! 'A-'A
This leads to a slightly inferior end¬
game. After 21 43 f3 43d5 22 43c5 1@rg4 23 Game 20
h3 ®b4 the position is more or less bal¬ H.Stevic-D.Rogic
anced. Vinkovci 1995
21.. .«rd5! 22 Wxd5 <S3xd5 23 bxc6
Axe5 24 Axe5 Hxe5 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 43c6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4
Black accepts the piece, but fails to Ab6 5 a4 a6 6 4ic3
find any advantage after this. Instead
24.. .£lxc6!? 25. Ab2 b5 would give White
a few problems. His bishop cannot really
find scope and Black can possibly put
some pressure on c2.
25 cxb7 He8 26 g3 <bf6 27 Idl &c6
28 ®d7!

The main move.

6...£>f6
6.. .43xb4 7 £lxe5 ®g5 looks tempting,
but after 8 Wf3!? (not 8 4ixf7? Wxg2 9
Bfl d5! and Black is better) 8...43xc2+ 9
*dl ®xe5 10 lrxf7+ <&d8 11 #f8+ We8
12 Wxe8+ &xe8 13 ^xc2 ±x£2 14 43d5!?
White is desperately trying to assist his Ad4 15 43xc7+ &d8 16 4ka8 Axal 17
b-pawn to come to greatness. d3 Jtd4 18 Af4, White has a clear advan¬
28.. .43b8! tage.
Subtle play from Black. After 7 4bd5 £)xd5
28.. .£)xd7 29 Bxd7 <4>f8 30 Sc7 &b8 31 7.. .£\xe4 8 0-0 £>d6?! (but if 8...d6 9 d3
c4! Black faces a c-pawn racing up the 43 f6 10 Jlg5 and White is slighdy better,
board. Nevertheless, 31...Be7 32 Hc8 Be8 I.Kan-M.Botvinnik, Odessa 1929) 9 Jtb3
33 c5 *e7 34 c6 £>xc6 35 Sxc6 <*d7 e4? (a standard mistake; Black starts to
would still make the draw. attack before completing his development
29 4bxf6+ gxf6 30 c4 *g7 31 c5 and the punishment comes swifdy...) 10
fie7 32 Ibl Sc7 33 Hb5 f5 34 sfrg2 d3! 0-0? (lacking in consistency; this is
*f6 35 4h3 i?g6 36 *h4 f6 37 f4 characteristic of correspondence games,

61
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

where you have time to realise when you

are on a wrong track; but 10...0-0 only
makes matters worse) 11 Ag5 ®e8

9 0-0
Alternatively:
a) 9 £>xe5P! 0-0 10 0-0 d6 11 &£3 J.g4
12 £)f6+! (simple, but still nice) 12 i.e2 &xe2+ 13 Wxe2 Se8 14 fU3
12.. .gxf6 13 Axf6 h6 14 £>g5 Ad4 15 Wf6 and Black has the initiative,
't'hS £if5 16 %6+ 1-0 T.Harding- J.Bednarski-N.Minev, Warsaw 1961.
P.Feher Polgar, correspondence 1988. b) 9 a5 JU7 10 d6!P (if 10 0-0 £)xB+
Instead of 10...0-0? Black could have 11 WxB d6 12 d3 0-0 13 Ae3 Axe3 14
tried 10...exfi 11 Hel+ <&f8 12 £\xb6 Wxe3 Se8 is equal) 10...Wf6 (or 10...cxd6
cxb6 13 fhcB h6! (if 13...Wf6? 14 Wxf6 11 0-0 0-0 12 £\xd4 i.xd4 13 c3 i.a7 14
gxf6 15 i.h6+ 4?g8 16 Se3, or 13...4&M!? WB) 11 c3 £lxB+ 12 #xB WxB 13 gxB
14 Wd5 £)4f5 15 Af4 16 g4 Wg6 17 cxd6 14 Ad5 and White has full compen¬
*hl and White wins) 14 J.a3! b5 (or sation for the pawn.
14.. .Wf6 15 Wxf6 gxf6 16 b5 and wins) 9...£>xf3+ 10 Wxf3
15 JLb2 bxa4 16 Sxa4 and White has a
terrific attack, e.g. 16...b5 17 #f4 bxa4 18
Wxd6+ ^3e7 19 &d5 Sb8 20 ®xb8
£3xd5 21 Wd6+ £le7 22 ±d4 and White
is close to winning.
8 exd5 £\d4
Or 8...e4 9 dxc6 exB 10 WxS We7+
11 'i’dl!? (11 Wc2 dxc6 12 Wxe7+ 4?xe7
13 i.b2 ±e6 was equal in Y.Estrin-
G.Ravinsky, Moscow 1956) ll...dxc6 12
&b2 J.e6 13 Jtxg7 fig8 14 J.f6 (if 14
J.xe6 fxe6 15 Jtc3 Wd7 and Black has
definite compensation) 14...Jlg4 15 Jtxe7 10. ..d6
JLxB+ 16 gx£3 4ixe7 and the position is After 10...Wh4! Black gets equality by
more or less equal. keeping control over d4; e.g. 11 d3 d6 12

62
 The Evans Gambit Declined

h3 0-0 etc.
11 a5 Aa7 12 ±b2 0-0?!
It was last chance to stop d2-d4 with
12...'Bfh4!. Now White takes over.

22...Axd5 23 Axf6 2e4 24 2f5 Ac6

25 f3 S4e6?!
Now Black could have made a draw
with 25...Sxb4 26 Sg5+ *f8 27 Ag7+
13 d4! #h4 &e7 28 Sel+ &d7 29 Ah3+ Se6 30
Too late. But if 13...Axd4 14 Axd4 Axe6+ fxe6 31 Ac3 Axc5+ 32 <^g2 Sb3
exd4 15 «T4 Se8 16 Sael Ad7 17 Wxd4 33 Sg7+ <^c8 34 Sg8+ <4>d7 35 Sg7+.
and White is slighdy better. 26 Ac4 dxc5
14 g3 ®f6? 26...h6? is met strongly by 27 Sf4! dxc5
The last chance was 14...e4!? 15 We3 28 Sg4+ <&f8 29 Ag7+ &e7 30 Axe6 h5
fh3 16 1txe4 Af5 17 We2 Sae8 18 Wd2 31 Sf4 cxb4+ 32 &g2 fxe6 33 Sdl Ad5
Wh5 when Black has compensation. 34 Sxb4 and White is better.
15 #xf6 gxf6 27 bxc5 Axc5+ 28 <*>f1! Sxf6! 29
Black must go through the rest of the lxf6 ±d4 30 Axf7 + <4>g7 31 Ixc6
game asking about a draw, which is hu¬
miliating, particularly when White does
not hear the question.
16 Hfdl ±g4 17 2d2 2fe8 18 ±f1
Se7 19 c4! 2ae8 20 c5
Now Black has to play without the a7-
bishop. When it returns to the game,
pawn structure will decide.
20...exd4 21 2xd4 Af3
If 21.„f5 22 Sc4 dxc5 23 bxc5 Afi 24
d6 Sd7 25 fic3 Ae4 26 Sdl and White is
much better.
22 2f4? 31 ...Axal??
Better was 22 fla3 dxc5 23 bxc5 Ae4 Black could still have held with
24 Sc3 and White keeps the pressure. 31...bxc6 32 Sa4 ^xf7 33 Sxd4 Se5 34

63
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Sd7+ 4^8 35 Sxc7 Sxa5 36 Sxc6 Sa2 and Black is in trouble because the white
37 x&gl <^?g7 and game is drawn due to rook is heading for el. Maybe somehow
the poor position of the white king. Black can survive; for instance 12...tc5
32 Hxc7! 13 te2+ Wc7! is worth a tty, as 13...iS?d8?
Now White wins. 14 £>e5! Wf8 15 Bel £>xc2 leads to 16
32...2e5 33 ±d5+ <4f6 34 ±xb7 h6 d6!! d3 17 We4 cxd6 18 £\f7+ *C7 19
35 2c6+ *g7 36 2xa6 Ac3 37 l.e4 l.f4 £lxel 20 Wd5 &b8 21 Axd6+
Hxa5 38 2g6+ *f7 39 2xh6 ±f6 40 Wxd6 22 &>xd6 and White wins. Whether
*g2Sa2+ 1-0 White can improve his attack after
lS.-.te? is hard to judge. But the pres¬
Game 21 sure is on Black all the same, and I do not
R.Ponomariov-G.Giorgadze recommend it.
Krasnodar 1997 a2) 10...£le5 11 d6 cxd6 12 &d5 l’f6
13 40g5 0-0 14 fia3 h6 (after 14...d3 15 f4!
1 e4 e5 2 &f3 &c6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4 ^3g6 16 *h5 h6 17 £)e4 td4 18 Wxg6
Ab6 5 a4 a6 6 4lc3 £>f6 7 d4!? dxc2 19 <i?e2 and White wins, while if
15...dxc2 16 Wxc2 g6 17 JSh3 with a
strong attack) 15 ^3e4 tf5 16 Sg3 <Slg6
17 c4 dxc3 18 h4 c2 19 Wd2 Wh5

An interesting gambit which, for no

apparent reason, is seldom played in
tournaments. Objectively White does not
get any advantage here, but the play is Now White should continue 20 £)f6+!!
interesting and complicated, so there are (not 20 lxg6? Wdl+ 21 'tel &h8 22
practical chances. fig3 txd5 23 ±b2 4d4 24 ±xd4 txd4
7...ilxd4 25 Sc3 fle8 26 f3 d5 0-1 S.Conquest-
Probably the best. L.Winants, Amsterdam 1996) 20...gxf6 21
a) 7...exd4 8 ^3xd5 9 exd5 te7+ J,f3 tf5 22 h5 Be8 23 hxg6 fxg6 24
10 ‘A’fl and White has serious attacking Jtd5+ Se6 25 flf3 #g5 26 «t.xe6+ dxe6
possibilities. Here we should look at two 27 txc2 with a winning position.
options: b) 7...<51x04 is so far untested, but
al) 10...^xb4!P 11 Ag5 f6 12 Wd2l could prove to be playable. Still, White is

64
 The Evans Gambit Declined

able to create real compensation for the lxe6 (weaker is 11 23d5?! 23xe4 12 ld3
pawn after 8 Jtg5! (but not 8 23xe5? We7! c6 13 23c3 d5 14 fxe5 dxc4 15 lxe4
when Black is much better, e.g. 9 23xf7? 23e2+ 16 -4>h l ld4 17 lxd4 23xd4 18
SfB, 9 23d3 d5! 10 ixd5 c6 11 1x4 lb2 0-0-0 and Black is better, R.Leyva-
23xe4, or 9 a5 la7 10 *2103 d5! 11 23xd5 J.Olivera, Holguin 1999) ll...fxe6 12 ie3
15x4+ 12 23e3 lg4) 8...d6 9 23d5 and 23c6 13 b5 axb5 14 axb5 flxal 15 Ixal
now we have: with the initiative.
bl) 9...1g4 10 c3 23xf3+ 11 gxB lh3
12 lb3! and suddenly Black cannot pro¬
tect himself without returning the pawn
in an inferior position.
b2) 9...c6 10 lxf6 gxf6 11 23xb6
lxb6 12 c3 23xf3+ 13 lxf3 f5 14 0-0!?
with decent compensation for the pawn.
White is at least not worse.
8 23xd4 23xd4 9 f4 d6

11 23d5!? 23xd5 12 lxd5 0-0 13 c3

23c6 was tried out in J.Palkovi-P.Acs,
Budapest 1997, continuing 14 f5?! If6 15
lh5 23e7 16 g4?! (instead 16 lb3 and
Black is only slighdy better) 16...23xd5 17
exd5 e4 18 g5 le5 19 gxh6 g6 20 h7+
<A’h8 21 lh4 lxf5 and Black had a clear
advantage. White should prefer 14 lxc6!
10 0-0 bxc6 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 lh5 le7 17 le3
The less ambitious 10 fxe5 dxe5 11 and White has some initiative here.
lg5 has also been tried: 1 l...le6 12 23d5 11 ...dxe5 12 23d5 le6
c6 13 23xf6+ gxf6 14 lxe6 fxg5 15 lc4 12...23xd5P! 13 lxd5 gives Black some
23e6!, and now instead of the sharp 16 trouble, e.g. 13...flf8 14 lh5 with an at¬
lh5? 0-0 17 c3 23f4 18 I'll b5 19 lb3 tack and 13...0-0P! 14 lh5 le7 15 lxh6!
ld3 where Black is much better, when White regains the material and still
R.Leyva-F.Dc la Paz, Cienfuegos 1997, has an attack.
White should play the humble 16 lxe6 13 23xf6+ gxf6 14ld3
lxdl+ 17 Exdl fxe6 with good drawing White should not force the play yet.
chances. After 14 lxe6 23xe6 15 lf3 23d4 16
10. ..h6 lxf6 lxf6 17 Sxf6 23xc2 18 fibl 23d4
White is quite ready for 10...1e6 11 19 Hxh6 Ixh6 20 lxh6 <4>e7 Black is

65
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

perhaps slightly better because of the The pawn ending looks bad for White,
powerful knight on d4. but it is a draw! See for yourself: 26
14...£ib3 flxd8+! <*xd8 27 g4 4>d7 28 *g2 4>d6
29 *0 b5 30 axb5 axb5 31 h4 f6 32 r4?e4
c6 33 <i?f3 4?d5 34 ^?e3 and Black cannot
make progress.
26.. .f6 27 *g1 2g8
27...Bd3 would allow 28 Be4! (after the
passive 28 Bel ‘i’d? Black is much bet¬
ter) 28...ttxc3 29 Bh4 Bb3 30 Bxh6
Bxb4 31 Sxf6 Bxa4 32 Se6 Be4 33 g3
with enough counterplay for a draw.
28 2e4 h5 29 h3 Hg5 30 g4 *d7 31
<&f2 hxg4 32 hxg4 &d6 33 *f3 Sg7
34 Sell
15fib1 If 34 c4 a5! and Black has good win¬
15 cxb3? is met by 15...18rd4+ 16 Ae3 ning chances.
Wxe3+ 17 *hl 0-0-0 18 BO Wd4 with a 34.. .6d5 35 Shi *c4 36 Bh6 Sf7
clear advantage. 37 <4>e4 i>xc3
Black has now escaped from the open¬
ing with a pleasant equality, but the game
is still going, and the two players are still
comparing their abilities.
15...£sxc1 16 #xc1 #d4+ 17 &h1 f5
18 exf5 J.d5 19 ±e2 0-0-0 20 c3
*e4 21 J,f3 1^3 22 J.xd5 Bxd5 23
Sdl «xd1+ 24 'Bbidl 2xd1+ 25
Hxdl Hd8

38 Sxf6!!
This is the beautiful idea White has
planned for some moves. Remember
Euwe’s rule: when two connected passed
pawns have a total of four moves com¬
bined to reach the back row, the rook is
no longer able to stop them on its own.
38...Sxf6 39 g5 Hb6
The correct defence. If 39...If8? 40
<4>xe5 A>xb4 41 £6 le8+ 42 <4>f5 &xa4 43

66
 The Evans Gambit Declined

g6 and White wins. Ab6 5 a4 a5!?

40 f6 Sxb4+ 41 <4>xe5 Bg4!
Black finds the draw. He is able to set
up a simple fortress that cannot be bro¬
ken. In the remainder of the game he
needs to make one accurate move, but it
would not have been unfair had White
stopped playing for a win around here.
42 f7 Sxg5+ 43 <4e4 2g4+ 44 *e3
2xa4 45 f8# 4?b3 46 #c8 b5

Though this move prevents the pleas¬

ant transposition into the Italian Game, it
is still not an easy way to receive equality.
6 b5 4id4

This is the fortress.

47 #xc7 Hc4 48 fb6 Bc3+ 49 4?d4
Sc4+ 50 4?d5 b4 51 #xa6 Sc3 52
#a1 Bc8 53 #f1 Bc3 54 <4>d4 *a3
55 #36+ sfeb3 56 #a5 Scl 57 #d5+
*a3 58 #a5+ <^b3 59 4>d3 Sc8 60
#a6 Sc7 61 #e6+ i?a3 62 *d2 Bc5
63 #d6 Hc3 64 #d5 Sc8 65 *d3 7 4hxd4
Scl 66 #a5+ *b3 67 *d4 Sc4+ 68 White has some interesting alternatives
4>d5 Scl 69 d?d6 Sc2 70 #a1 Bc3 here:
71 *d7 Sc5 72 *d6 Sc3 73 4>d5 a) 7 i.xf7+?! ^xf7 8 £3xe5+ <4>f8 9 c3
Sc7 74 #d1 + &a3 75 #a1 + <&>b3 76 d6 10 J.a3 #e7 11 f4 ±h3!! 12 cxd4
<fcd6 Sc3 77 Wei 4>a3 Vz-'A Jhtg2 13 Sgl Wh4+ 14 <4>e2 #xh2 and
Black has terrible attack for nothing.
Game 22 b) 7 c3 <§3xf3+ 8 Wxf3 WfG 9 Wxf6
G. Kasparov-J .Piket ^3xf6 10 d3 with equality.
Amsterdam 1995 c) 7 4flxe5? Wg5 (7...Wf6 is met by 8
^3f3 and White is much better according
1 e4 e5 2 <Shf3 £>c6 3 J.c4 J,c5 4 b4 to Unzicker) 8 0-0 (White can die quickly

67
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

with 8 J,xf7+ *f8 9 0-0 '#'xe5 or 8 ^xf7

#xg2 9 fifl fce4+ 10 l.c2 £iB mate!)
8.. .#xe5 9 c3 0\c6 10 Bel. According to
Anatoly Matsukevich, White has some
compensation here, but I think this is
only enough for 3 minute blitz games.
After 10...i.xf2+ 11 <i?xf2 Wc5+ 12 d4
®xc4 13 fle3 <53 f8 14 Wg4 £)g6 15 43d2
We6 Black wins.
7.. .J,xd4 8c3 Ab6

Black should not rush to give up the

centre. Here he should probably play
9.. .We7 10 0-0 (if 10 %4 &fiS 11 #xg7
Sg8 12 Wh6 2g6 with unclear play in
B.Kantsler-V.Mikhalevsky, Ramat Aviv
1998) 10...d6 11 f4 JLe6 12 <Sk3 exd4 13
cxd4 £)f6 with an unclear game ahead.
Less reliable is 9...Wh4 10 0-0 &f6 11
<53d2 d6 12 43 B Wh5 13 dxe5 <511x64 (or
13.. .dxe5 14 43g5 Wxdl 15 Sxdl JLe6 16
9 0-0 has also been tried, which quite Axe6 £xe6 17 c4 h6 18 43xe6 *f7 19 c5
naturally continues with 9...d6 10 d4 ®e7 ^xe6 20 cxb6 cxb6 21 B with a clear
11 f4 Ae6 12 <5)a3 exd4 13 cxd4 0-0-0 (if advantage) 14 ®el d5 15 jLxd5 43c5 16
13...4)f6?! 14 f5 i.xc4 15 43xc4 ^lxe4 16 Ae3 Ae6 17 Jtxe6 43xe6 18 ^xb6 cxb6
£)xb6 cxb6 17 Wg4 and White has a 19 We3 and White was better, S.Nadyr-
strong initiative) and now White has two hanov-LKomissarov, Smolensk 1997.
options:
a) 14 Ae2 &f6 15 J.B d5 16 e5 £\e4
17 <5)lc2 h5 and the position is about
equal, J.Nunn-H.Hecht, Buenos Aires
Olympiad 1978.
b) 14 f5!? seems to be more challeng¬
ing: 14..Jtxc4 15 <Sixc4 ®xe4 16 Sf4
We7 17 a.<\2 and Black has problems
keeping the position equal. One example
is 17...£)f6 18 Icl ^b8 19 £\xa5 ±,xa5
20 J.xa5 We3+ 21 ifehl! and White has a
strong initiative.

68
 The Evans Gambit Declined

10 0-0 tion is unclear) \6..Ma2 17 Bxc7 Jt,xc7

White can also try to fight for the cen¬ 18 £\xc7+ *d8 19 <53xa8 d6 20 H'cl and
tre immediately with 10 cxd4!? d5 11 White wins.
exd5! (after 11 Jlxd5 Q\cl Black is proba¬ 15 4kl5! Txal 16 Wxal
bly alright) ll...£te7 12 4bc3 0-0 13 0-0
£3f5 14 Aa3 fle8 15 ±c5 and White
seems to be better.
10...<Sle7 11 J.g5 h6 12 Axel Wxe7
13 cxd4 #d6?
This leads to unwanted tactics. Three
alternatives spring to mind:
a) 13...0-0 14 £3c3 c6 15 Sbl &c7 16
e5 d6 17 f4 i.e6 18 i.xe6 fxe6 19 &e4
and White is better.
b) 13...d6 14 £\c3 ±e6 15 &d5 Sb8 16
Wd3 0-0 17 Sael and White is better.
c) 13...Wb4!? 14 &a3 0-0 15 Vd3 d5 16...0-0?
16 exd5 Ad7 17 <?3c2 Wd6 18 <£ie3 and This only makes things worse. Now
White has a slight advantage according to the black queen gets trapped quite amus¬
Kasparov. ingly. Sadly necessary was 16...f6 17 b6!
cxb6 18 e5 fxe5 19 Bel ^d8 20 Bxe5
and White is much better according to
Kasparov.
17e5#c5

14 <S3c3! I,xd4
Kasparov gives the following explana¬
tion behind Black’s last move, i.e.
14...Wxd4 is met with 15 £M5!! when
Black is faced with a horrible choice: 18flc1! c6
a) 15...#e5 16 Bel 0-0 17 4l3xb6 cxb6 Or 18...d6 19 JLa2 Wa7 20 Sxc7 J.e6
18 J.d5 White is much better. 21 b6 Wbtt 22 <§3e7+ rih8 23 JLxe6 fxe6
b) 15...®xc4 16 Scl! (not 16 <53x66? 24 <53g6+ ifegH 25 exd6 and White wins.
cxb6 17 Wd6 Wc6 18 e5 h5 and the posi¬ 19Aa2 «a3

69
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

If 19...Wxcl+ 20 Wxcl cxd5 21 J.xd5 equality is also possible, but Black wants
d6 22 exd6 fld8 23 #c5 and White wins, more.
or 19...Wa7 20 b6 tT.8 21 £>c7 d5 22
exd6 jtf5 23 Wcd and Black’s position is
very poor.
20 £\b6

Well, this is why White has played 5

b5. Instead, after 6 JLe2?! d5! 7 £)c3 dxe4
8 £>xe4 f5 9 £ic3 e4 10 £lgl £)f6 11
£>h3 Wd4 12 0-0 i.e6 13 Vel ^dc4 Black
game. has a clear advantage, R.Spielmann-
20.. .d5 21 &xa8 4>h8 22 <§lb6 Ae6 A.Bum, Carlsbad 1911, while after 6 4^a3
23 h3 lSdxc4 7 £3xc4 d6 8 d4 exd4 9 £3xd4 JLe6
Or 23 bxc6 bxc6 24 2c3 Wb4 25 2xc6 10 ^3e3 Wh4 Black is at least slightly bet¬
Sb8 26 Wbl ®d4 27 h3 Ad7 28 Sd6 ter.
and wins. 6 ...£>h6!
23.. .fid8 24 bxc6 bxc6 25 2c3 Wb4 The simplest and most definitely the
26 2xc6 Sb8 27 £sxd5 ffxa4 28 Scl coolest. Of course Black has a high num¬
Wa3 29 l.c4 1-0 ber of likeable alternatives here. However,
we will focus on the main move.
Game 23 7 d4 d6 8 £xh6 dxe5!
J.Bademian Orchanian-R.Servat 8...gxh6?! would allow White to
Mar del Plata 1992 unleash his idea: 9 JLxf7+! (not 9 £lxf7?
«T6 10 £>xh8 4lxc4 11 c3 ±c6 12 0-0
1 e4 e5 2 ®f3 £>c6 3 &c4 &c5 4 b4 0-0-0 and Black is better, or 10 Wh5? 0-0
±b6 5 b5?! 11 £lxh6+ (4>g7 12 £)g4 Wf4! and Black
White should calm down a bit; it is too wins) 9...&e7 10 *5dc3 dxe5 11 Wf3 jLg4
early for an attack. This game is a classic 12 Wxg4 &xf7 13 dxe5 %5 14 Wd7+
example of why you should mobilise your ^f8 15 f4 Sd8 16 Wh3 %5 17 Sdl
forces before attacking. 2xdl+ 18 'sfrxdl c6 and the position is
5..Aa5! pleasantly unclear.
5...4!M4 6 <5lxd4 Jlxd4 7 c3 Ab6 with 9 Axg7 Sg8

70
 The Evans Gambit Declined

Black could also play 9...'firxd4 10 Black needs to play energetically. If in¬
Wxd4 Axd4 11 JsLxhB Axal 12 Ad3 stead 13...1Hfxg2?! 14 1®xg2 Sxg2 15 c4 c5
r~iic7 with equality. 16 d5 and White is better, because of the
10 ±xf7+ 4xf7 11 „4xe5 #g5 weak position of the knight on a5.
14#f6#h5
Not 14...Wxf6?! 15 Axf6 Ae6 16 Sgl
4k4 17 £lxc4 Axc4 18 c3 and White is at
least equal.
15 0-0??
This plays straight into Black’s hands.
Better was 15 D Ad 7 16 c4 (not 16 g4?
Wh3 17 c4 2f8 18 ®g5 <S3xc4 19 £\xc4
Wxf3 and Black wins) 16...c6 17 g4 'Wi3
18 Ad6 Ad8 19 #e5+ 4f7 20 Wf4+ (or
20 0-0-0 cxb5 21 c5 fic8 22 %3 Sh6 23
h4 with an unclear game) 20...<S?e8 21
According to some old analysis by We5+ 4f7 with equality.
D.N.Pavlov, White is almost equal after 15...Sd8
12 4id2. Four pawns can be more than Or 15...*d7!? 16 Ag3 2af8 17 th4
enough to compensate for the piece. Wxh4 18 Axh4 Axd4 19 Sabi Ac3 20
However, the weak coordination of his f3 Ah3 21 Ag3 Axd2 22 gxh3 4?3c4 and
pieces is the lasting minus of White’s po¬ Black wins.
sition. 16 f3 Ah3 17 2f2
12#f3+
If 12 £)d2 Wxg2 13 Wh5+ 4f8 14
0-0-0 ®h3 15 Wxh3 Axh3 16 c4 Se8 and
Black is just better.
12...4e8 13®d2

17.. .Hd7??
Black returns the favour. After
17.. .2g6 18 *T4 (or 18 Wh8+ 4d7)
18.. .5xd4! 19 Axd4 Axd4 20 *hl Ax£2
21 gxh3 Wxb5 Black is winning.
18 g4 2g6

71
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

If 18...%6 19 c3 #xf6 20 J,xf6 Hf7 White is still fighting.

21 e5 h5 22 <53e4 hxg4 23 f4 £k4 24 f5
and White is much better.
19 #f5
19 ■#'h8+b is a cute trap: 19...<ie7? 20
J,f6+! &f7 21 lei Sd6 22 e5 and White
wins. Black should reply 19...4?17 20 c3
c5 with unclear play.
19.. .»h6 20 Af4 *g7 21 le5
Or 21 c3 Sf7 22 We5+ ltxe5 23 Axe5
h5 24 a4 c5 with an unclear game.
21.. .We7 22 c3 2g5

31.. .2xd5!
Now everything becomes clear.
32 Sdel
If 32 fixd5 Hcl+ 33 *f2 Sfl mate!
32.. .fic3 33 Sb2 b6 34 2b3 fic2 0-1

1 e4 e5 2 Qf3 &c6 3 ±c4 i,c5 4 b4

23 Af6?! d5!?
After the exchange of queens by 23
■§76 #xf6 24 ±xfb lxb5 25 e5 £>c6 26
^3c4, it looks as if White is a little better.
23.. .2.f5 24 J,xe7 2xb5 25 Af6
White loses a tempo compared with 23
Wf6.
25.. .c5! 26 c4?
Suddenly White is collapsing com¬
pletely. Instead, after 26 d5 c4 27 Jld4
±xd4 28 cxd4 c3 29 £lbl Hc7 30 £3a3
2b2 31 Icl £fc4 32 d6 flc6 33 d5 lc5
34 47xc4 Hxc4 35 Sfc2 White keeps
drawing chances. This move looks dangerous, but one
26.. .Hb4 27 d5 <Slxc4 28 £>xc4 2xc4 should not be lead astray by appearances.
29 Se2 ilc7 30 Sdl If4 31 e5? In my opinion contemporary theory' un¬
After 31 ;»fcf2 Black is much better, but derestimates this move. All the same, it is

72
 The Evai Gambit Declined

probably not strong enough to equalise. J.Pierrot, Argentine Championship 2000.

5 exd5 12 d5 Ad6 13 4ld2 Be8 14 £idf3
Note that 5 Jk,xd5?! £lxb4 6 Jtb3 £lf6 #c7
7 We2 0-0 8 0-0 Ag4 gives Black the bet¬ Now White must start to play carefully
ter chances. in order to keep the balance.
5.. .<2ixb4 6 0-0 £>f6 7 <?ixe5 0-0 8 d4 15 Bel <^g4 16 £ixg4 J,xg4 17
±e7! 9 Ab3 Bxe8+ Bxe8 18 h3 Ah5 19 «d3
The best option is 9 4k3! 4?3bxd5 10 ±g6 20 #c3 f6 21 Bel #d7 22 #a5
^xd5 £3xd5 11 #£3 Ae6 12 Sbl Sb8 13 ±e4 23 #xa7 Axf3 24 Bxe8+ Wxe8
Scl and White has some advantage. 25 gxf3
9.. .<^bxd5 10 c4 £ib6 11 ±b2

25...'§rg6+
11...C5I Or 25...£>xc4!P 26 &xc4 Wg6+ 27 *fl
A prepared improvement over ll...c6P! Wbl+ 28 &g2 Wg6+ with equality. Note
12 <§3d2 a5 13 a4 ±b4 14 £>df3 JLfS 15 that 28...tfxb2P! 29 Wa8+ <4>f7 30 J.d3
We2 2e8 16 £lg5 2e7 17 Wf3 WcH 18 gives White has some attacking chances.
d5! and White was better, R.Felgaer- 26 i/fl Wd3+ V2-V2

73
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Summary
If the Evans Gambit can be challenged, it is not by declining the gambit. After 4... Ab6
5 a4! a6 6 a5! White should be a little better, as demonstrated in Chapter 4. The alterna¬
tive 5...a5, as in Kasparov-Piket, does not seem to equalise either. Finally, 4...d5!? can¬
not be completely disregarded, but White should still find a way to keep the pressure
there, as seen on move 9 in Game 24.

1 e4 e5 2 ®f3 £sc6 3 i,c4 £c5 4 b4 (D) !b6

4.. .d5 - Game 24
5 a4 (D)
5 b5 - Game 23
5.. .a6
5.. .a5 - Game 22
6 4ic3
6 i.b2 - Game 19
6 c3 4if6 7 d3 d6 - Game 15
6.. .6f6 (D)
7 £\f5 - Game 20
7 d4 - Game 21

I J.#® 4H hrnmm 4H
*±■±■±■1 i±±± ±±± Iffifllt181
mm m ■ H ■
m'm'm'm % 7^ 7r ^ IIH ^ ||p
§§ B 1k3R §§' P IllOiP §§' 10 '■€&
§§§ it!! Ml itH "m£m MiiM §§fit Ml Ml it IS

4b4 5a4 6...fof6

74
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £ic6 3 £,c4 ic5 4 b4
J,xb4 5 c3 ±e7
In this chapter we shall examine a
slightly passive-looking bishop retreat,
which nevertheless holds great prospects
1 e4 e5 2 &f3 £c6 3 Ac4 &c5 4 b4
for counter-strikes in the centre. The key
l,xb4
idea is to answer White’s logical follow-up
The principled reply.
6 d4 with 6...4ia5, in order to strip White
5c3J.e7
of the two bishops and, more impor-
Again a logical response. The bishop
tandy, to gain control over the d5-square
tries to get out of harm’s way and return
and thereby prepare ...d7-d5. This is seen
to a more modest accommodation, from
after the logical moves 7 Jie2 exd4 8
where it can assist with the protection of
cxd4?! d5! and Black is doing absolutely
the king.
fine. It is for this reason that Kasparov
6 d4 £ia5
introduced (at the top level) 8 1ttrxd4!,
which is the subject of the first three
games in this chapter.
In Game 28, we will look at 7 4ixe5,
the move preferred before 1995, which
allows Black to obtain the two bishops
and strike in the centre. However, White
regains his pawn and also has a large cen¬
tral presence. Finally, in Game 29 we will
see the ancient idea 6 1firb3!?, which de¬
serves mentioning, though is hardly criti¬
cal.

75
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

This has long been the main idea be¬ V.Smirnov, Minsk 1976, though Black
hind Black’s previous move. Instead of can keep the balance with 16,..®'c7 ac¬
trying to cling on to the extra pawn, Black cording to Matsukevich. However, a lot
is aiming for the dangerous white bishop. of moves from both sides might be dis¬
Black has some alternatives, but none that cussed, so please do not take this as a
deserves too much attention. recommendation. I will only say that
a) 6...exd4 7 cxd4 £la5 is just not the there is nothing definitely wrong with 7
same! After 8 JkB d5 9 exd5 Wxd5 10 ld3.
0-0 &f6 11 £)c3 Wh5 12 Ibl a6 13 Af4
White has enough compensation for the
pawn.
b) 6...d6?! also makes little sense, as
White retains the pawn without becoming
more peaceful. R.Fischer-O.Celle, Davis
(simul) 1964, continued 7 dxe5 £lxe5 8
£lxe5 dxe5 9 Wh5 g6 10 Wxe5 4lf6 11
±a3 lf8 12 0-0 $)g4 13 Wg3 ±xa3 14
^xa3 We7 15 Ab5+ c6 16 £lc4! and
White had a strong attack.
7 Ae2
The standard alternative 7 4hte5 is 7...exd4
considered below in Game 28. Apart 7...d6 is a less well-known alternative,
from the text move. White has also tried: when after 8 Wa4+ c6 9 dxe5 dxe5 10
a) 7 JLtf7+!? (risky, but interesting) £>xe5 £>f6 11 0-0 b5 12 Wc2 0-0 13 a4
7...4?xf7 8 <?3xe5+ sfeeS! (the most testing; b4 14 cxb4 ±xb4 we have an unclear
also safe is 8...*fB 9 ©0+ £>f6 10 g4 d6 game, T.Bullockus-M.Melts, correspon¬
11 g5 dxe5 12 gxf6 JLxf6 13 dxe5 $3c4 14 dence 1983.
exf6 '#xf6 15 Wxf&f gxf6 with equality) 9 8 ttxd4l?
fti5+ g6 10 <2ixg6 *2lf6 11 Wxa5 hxg6 12
e5 ^e4 13 Wd5 4lg5 14 £\d2 d6 15 f4 c6
16 #b3 4be6 17 £lf3 dxe5 18 fxe5 Wb(>
19 Wc2 and White has some compensa¬
tion, D.Sakellarakis-J.Carr, correspon¬
dence 1998.
b) 7 JlLd.l!? does not appear to have been
much tested. Here is one practical exam¬
ple: 7...exd4 8 cxd4 d5 9 e5 c5 10 dxc5
£)c6 11 0-0 ±xc5 12 £>c3 Ag4 13 Ae2
<S}ge7 14 <$\i4 lxf3 15 <S3xc5 lxe2 16
Wxe2 when White has enough compen¬
sation for the pawn, V.Vakulienko- This was Kasparov’s way of breathing

76
 The Evans Gambit with 5...M,e7

new life into this line. f6 17 4j3e4, and here we should look at:
8...£lf6 a) 17...^)a4? 18 fid5 and now after
8...d6 and 8...d5 are investigated in 18.. .£ft>4? Black was sunk by 19 Hxe5!
Games 26 and 27 respectively. 8...'4’f8 has with a decisive attack: 19...fxe5 20 ttxe5
also been tried, but it looks as if White Hf8 21 Jlxf8 £>c6 (or 21...&xf8 22 Wh8+
should have enough compensation for *f7 23 <S)e5+ &e6 24 J.g4 mate) 22 Wg7
the pawn after most normal moves. The £\c3 23 Axe? %3xe2+ 24 *fl #xe7 25
quality of the games has not been high £lf6+ &d8 26 ®h8+ J.e8 27 2dl+ and
enough to give any practical and conclu¬ White was winning in R.Borngaesser-
sive evaluation, so I will leave it with just M.Henk, Diisseldorf 1995. Instead
this brief mention. 18.. .5g8 is more solid, but even then
9 e5 4ic6 10 Hi4 £id5 11 #g3 White can play 19 Uadi with a strong
attack
b) 17..JLf8!P is playable, though after
18 Jlxf8 Sxf8 19 c5 4tlc8 and now 20
Sabi!?, 20 fld2!P or 20 h4!P, White has
compensation in all cases.
15 Jl,h6!

11.. .g6
Black does not have enough compen¬
sation for the exchange after 11...0-0 12
Ah6 g6 13 Axf8 AxfS 14 0-0 Ah6 15
Sdl jLf4 16 fh3 d6 17 fh4 Wxh4 18
^xh4 ±e6 19 exd6 Axd6 20 4hf3 and
White is better. White cannot allow Black to castle. Af¬
12 0-0 <?3b6 ter 15 Af4 dxe5 16 £lxe5 4h4! 17 We3
If 12...0-0 13 fidl £\b6 14 a4 4ia5 15 %dcxe5 18 Axe5 0-0 Black is consolidat¬
±,h6 Be8 16 e6 l.f6 17 exf7+ &xf7 18 ing.
Ad3 d5 19 £\g5+ ±xg5 20 J,xg5 and 15.. .£\cxe5
White has a powerful attack. Here Black should have considered
13 c4 d6 14 Sdl ®d7 15.. .dxe5, when White has the following
14...Jld7!? was tried in the same year. options:
White continues with 15 Ah6 dxe5 (if a) 16 Ag7!? Sg8 17 J,xe5 £>cxe5 18
15.. .€ke5 16 £\xe5 dxe5 17 Wxe5 f6 18 £>xe5 Ad6 19 f4 Wf6 20 £\c3 Axe5 21
We3 and White is much better) 16 <§Y3 fxe5 Wxe5 22 Wf3! (after 22 fce5+

77
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

£)xe5 23 &d5 &f8 24 £>xc7 Bb8 25 fld5 If 20...±d7? 21 Agl Bg8 22 ±xf6
White has only enough compensation to with a strong attack.
draw) 22..Mc5+ 23 *hl £\e5 24 lTf6 21 #xh6 Af8 22 We3+ *f7
with an attack. 22.. Me7 is answered by 23 £le4 We5
b) 16 £)c3 ±f8 17 iLg5 f6 18 Ac3 24 £Vf6+ i>f7 25 £>e4 At! 26 f4 and
Agl 19 c5 0-0 20 l.c4+ ifehS 21 £ih4 Black is in difficulties.
<53e7 22 4^d5! and White has an attack 23 £id5 J,e6
once again. 23.. .±d7!? 24 #b3 Bb8 25 Bad Ae6
These lines shows the potential of was perhaps the last chance. Instead, after
White’s position, but should not be un¬ 23...jtg7 24 Wb3 ±e6 25 J,c4 Bc8 26
derstood as conclusive in any way; they £ib6 Bxc4 (if 26...itxc4 27 4ixc4 d5 28
are more illustrations to the dangers Black £>d6+ Wxd6 29 2xd5 Sc3 30 Bxd6+
is facing. I do not want to come with any wins) 27 £>xc4 <*f8 28 #b4 White has a
binding evaluation after 15...dxe5, as I big advantage.
simply cannot think of a suitable one. 24 f4 ®e7
16 £lxe5 £ixe5 17 £ic3 f6 18 c5 If 24...«fd7 25 Ab5l #xb5 26 #xe6+
S&gl 27 ?3d5 and White wins.
25 Sel 1-0

18...£lf7?
Now it goes wrong. Still, after 18...Ae6
19 Sabi White keeps the pressure. White wins in all lines, e.g. 25...Jtd7 26
19 cxd6 cxd6 kc4+ ^e8 27 Itt2, or 25...d5 26 J.B
After 19...ilxd6 20 J.b5+! Black can¬ Be8 27 £hce6 WxtG 28 MxtO+ Bxe6 29
not hold, e.g. 20...Adi 21 Bel+ JLe5 22 Jtxd5, as well as 25...Be8 26 4Axe6 Wxe6
Jtg7 Bg8 23 ±xd7+ &xd7 24 fT3+ &c7 27 Wxetih rst?xe6 28 ±b5+ etc.
25 Sadi Bxg7 26 Sxd8 <i?xd8 27 We6
and White wins, or 20...c6 21 jtf4 cxb5 Game 26
22 J,xd6 <Sl\d6 23 Bxd6 ®a5 24 flel+ A.Shirov-J.Timman
*f7 25 flxf6+ <4>xf6 26 £>d5+ &g7 27 mi 1995
Be7+ ifegS 28 Wc5 and mates.
20 #e3 43xh6 1 e4 e5 2 £\f3 £sc6 3 J.c4 ±c5 4 b4

78
 The Evans Gambit with 5...!ke7

Jixb4 5 c3 J.e7 6 d4 <5ia5 7 ;6.e2 12£\d4!?

exd4 8 #xd4 d6 Or 12 £>g5 h6 13 ^3h7!? 0-0-0 (not
Timman thinks it is more important 13.. .Wxe4?? 14 Wxg8+ Hxg8 15 £>xf6+
for Black to have some influence in the and wins) 14 <53xf6 <53xf6 15 <53d2 and
centre than to retain the extra pawn. White is slightly better.
9 Wxg7 J.f6 10 Wg3 We7 12.. . 0-0-0
10...<53e7 is answered strongly by 11 Black can also try 12...Wxe4, but after
J.g5! <5)ec6 12 Wf4 with an attack. 13 43d2 Wg6 14 ®e3+ <§3e7 15 Ad3 Wg7
16 <53e4 White has compensation.
13&d2 £ic6
After 13...h5 14 Ibl h4 15 ffe3 h3 16
g3 White’s attack looks much more dan¬
gerous.
14 We3 h5 15 Hbl £)h6

11 0-0?!
Recently, an improvement was found
on this game. Better here is 11 43g5 h6 12
£lh3 Wxc4 13 <5364 Ad7 14 0-0 0-0-0 15
£ld2 #34 16 <§3d5 ±h4 17 Wd3 foe7 18
Jif3 <S3ac6 19 2b 1 with compensation,
N.Short-Kir.Georgiev, Warsaw (rapid) 16 Wd3l?
2004. True to his style Shirov is more inter¬
11...Ad7?! ested in attacking than in grabbing mate¬
11 ...Wxe4! was more testing, when rial. After the long line 16 <53xc6 Jlxc6 17
White needs to play precisely: 12 Biel! (if Wxa7 We5 18 Hb3 £>g4 19 f4 ^5+ 20
12 <53d4 1x5 13 Wg5 &e7 and Black is Wxc5 dxc5 21 e5 &e7 22 c4 flhg8 23
better) 12...<*t?f8 13 <?3d4! (not 13 £)g5?! Jtf3 jhdE3 24 <5lxf3 <?3h6 Black has com¬
%6 14 Jld3 Af5 15 lxf5 ®xf5 16 £la3 pensation for the pawn.
2e8 17 JLd2 Hxel+ 18 Sxel £)e7 and 16.. .b6
White has nothing for the pawn) 13...1e5 With this move Black gives White a
14 Wg5 53e7 (if 14...<53f6?! 15 !Ti6+ <4>e7 point to attack, so although it seems
16 Wd2 and White has great compensa¬ ‘normal’, 16...b6 might be questionable.
tion) 15 Wh6+ jLg7 16 Wd2 and White Instead, 16...£3e5? 17 Wa6! and White
has compensation for the pawn, e.g. he is wins is a trick worth remembering, but
threatening ^3b5. 16.. .2dg8 is a logical move, setting an

79
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

elegant trap at the same time: 17 Bxb7? b) 20...1.xc5 21 J,f3+ c6 22 Ixb6

£3xd4 18 Wa6 £\xe2+ 19 *hl #e6! 20 J,xh2+ 23 <4>xh2 Wh4+ 24 <4>gl <S3g4 25
Bxa7+ ifcdH Black and wins. Better is 17 jtxc6+ Jk,xc6 26 <51203 wins. Instead
4(1213 with a continuing struggle. 21...d5! might have been Black’s best
17 a4! *b8 chance, though after 22 Axd5+ c6 23
Now after 17...Sdg8 White has 18 a5 <5lc4 <5\xc4 24 <53xc6 Jlxc6 25 J.xc6+
^xa5 19 'fa6+ *d8 20 Wxa7 4>e8 21 'A’bS 26 1Brxc4 White still has a clear ad¬
^b5 lxb5 22 Wa8+ I'd8 23 !xb5+ vantage.
'itel 24 1l'xd8+ Sxd8 and the two bish¬ 21 Af3+ d5 22 5lc4! Ac8
ops gives him the better chances. 22...^3xc4 is strongly met by 23 Sal!
18 a5 &xa5 19Wa6 <&>a8? £la5 24 Sxa5 bxa5 25 4lc6 Jk,xc6 26 J.e3
This is a fatal error. Black should play Wxe3 27 #xc6+ ^>b8 28 fxe3 Id6 29
19..Jtxd4 20 cxd4 &a8 21 Ab2 J.c8 22 Sbl+ <£c8 30 Wb7+ *d7 31 kxd5 and
Wb5, when White has compensation for White is much better according to Shirov.
the material according to Shirov. 23 Wxa5! Ifxd4
20 e5! If 23...bxa5? 24 &xe5 Axe5 25 £lc6
wins.
24#a2

Opening the long diagonal for White’s

light-squared bishop and starting one of
those classical all-destructive Shirov at¬ 24...#xc3
tacks. White wins after 24...Wh4 25 g3 Wh3
20...iixe5 26 &)xb6+ cxb6 27 fixb6, or similarly
In this kind of positions words can 2A..Mc5 25 Jle3! ®c6 26 £hcb6+ etc.
only tell so much. We need a few varia¬ Black’s last chance to stay in the game
tions to understand what is really going was with 24...'§rd3! 25 Sdl (here 25 -S,e3
on here... ,A,b8! is less clear; White has strong at¬
a) 20...dxe5 21 iLf3+ c6 (if 21...‘4>b8 22 tack, but Black is still alive) 25..3fcdl+ 26
Wxa5 exd4 23 Wxa7+ il?xa7 24 flal+ and jtxdl dxc4, although White maintains a
mates) 22 _JLa3 Jlc8 (if 22...'®rxa3 23 clear advantage after 27 Ae2 or 27 Jcf4.
<2^b5) 23 ®xa5! Wb7 241Bra4 and wins. 25 ±e3! J.b7

80
 The Evans Gambit with 5.,.k.e7

Or 25...®b8 26 £>xb6! cxb6 27 l.xb6 White is better after 19 Wc2!) 19 ±f4

axb6 28 Ixb6+ l,b7 29 l,xd5 Hd7 30 »b6 20 bxc6 J,xc6 21 Wa.3 Hxe2!? 22
Wa6 and White wins. Sxb6 axb6 with sufficient compensation
26 Jlxb6! cxb6 27 £hcb6+ *b8 28 to draw.
<Shcd5 1-0 10... c6

Game 27
J.Gunnarsson-K.Sasikiran
Elista Olympiad 1998

1 e4 e5 2 fcf3 &c6 3 J.c4 Ac5 4 b4

jlxb4 5 c3 J,e7 6 d4 &a5 7 Ae2
exd4 8 HTxd4 d5!?

White has more chances of equalising

after 11 dxc6 4*3xc6 12 0-0 0-0 13 fidl
Ih614£>bd2.
11.. .^e4! 12 i.d2
Or 12 Ab2 A(6 13 «h4 Axb2 14
Wxb2 0-0 15 dxc6 <?ixc6 16 0-0 fie8 and
Black is at least slightly better.
This aggressive counter-blow in the 12.. .£ixd2 13 4ibxd2 0-0 14 dxc6
centre is very typical of the young In¬ £)xc6 15 0-0 #c7
dian’s style.
9exd5 £>f6 10 1Ta4+?!
This only helps Black. White should go
for natural development with 10 c4, when
Black has two options:
a) 10...c6 11 £k3 0-0 12 0-0 ffe8 13
l,b2 ±f8 14 Sfdl and White is slightly
better L.Winants-M.Kremer, Amsterdam
1996.
b) 10...0-0 11 0-0 b5!? 12 cxb5 £>xd5
13 4k3 Abl 14 £>xd5 .txd5 15 «a4 c6
16 fldl Af6 17 Ibl Se8 18 J.e3 Wc7
(18...fle4 was agreed drawn in W.Lumley- Black has the better pawn structure
J.Soberano, correspondence 1995, though and the two bishops as well. At grand-
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

master level White is in a lot of trouble.

16 Sfel Af5 17 &fl Ac5 18 <5ig3
Ag6 19 a3 Aad8 20 #b5 #b6 21
«xb6 axb6!?
This is rather too ‘deep’ for my taste. I
prefer the standard 21...Jlxb6 when Black
is just better. However, Sasikiran is
probably targeting the white a-pawn and
certainly has some ideas behind his recap¬
ture.
22 Aedl Ac2

41 Sxe5 4id6 42 Ad5 £>f5 43 g3

£>e3 44 Se5 £ig4 45 Ae2 J?f5 46
<S?c4 h5 47 Ael 4ie3+ 48 <4-d3 *g4
49 Ahl 4?f3 50 Bal &g4 51 Aa7 g6
52 4>c4 4^xh2 53 Ig7 <^g4 54 *d5
&xg3 55 Axg6 *f4 0-1

Game 28
E.Sveshnikov-A.Kharitonov
Russian Ch., Krasnoyarsk 2003

23 Add? 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £lc6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4

23 Sxd8 Sxd8 24 Sa2 was White’s last Axb4 5 c3 Ae7 6 d4 &a5 7 &xe5!?
hope, e.g. 24...£bl 25 Sb2 A.g6 26 -Sih4 This was the usual move before Kas¬
with good drawing chances, though parov played 8 ®xd4!, thereby elevating 7
24.. .Aa4! 25 £3f5 Sa8 gives Black good Ae2 to main line status.
winning chances too. 7...£lxc4 8 £ixc4
23.. .6.4 24 Adi Axdl 25 Axdl
£hc2 26 lacl £>xa3 27 £)e4 Ab4 28
£id4 Afe8 29 f3
Or 29 4*3g3 Ac5 30 ^3df5 Bxdl+ 31
fixdl ^3xc4 and Black wins.
29.. .fixe4 30 fxe4 Ac5 31 *f1 Axd4
32 2xd4 Axd4 33 4>e2 f6 34 Adi
Ac5 35 Ad8+ 4>f7 36 *d3 b5 37
Ad7+ 4>g6 38 cxb5 b6 39 e5 fxe5
40 Ad5 ®xb5
Now everything is clear. Black is win¬
ning.

82
 The Evans Gambit with 5...!Le7

The outcome of the opening is already a) 13...cxd5 is quite a risky move: 14

quite clear. The position is relatively bal¬ cxd5 0-0 15 d6 ±d8 16 ±b2 fie8 17
anced, with White having a strong centre Ad7 18 £\dc4 Wa6 19 ^e5 ±e6 20 a4!
and Black having the two bishops. Now Jtb6 21 l5l3g4 and White has a strong
Black needs to strike in the centre before attack. M.Rybak-Z.Necesany, correspon¬
White takes complete control. dence 2000, continued 21...4ld5? (instead
8...d5 9 exd5 «0td5 10 £ie3 #a5 21...£lxg4 22 <$lxg4 Wc4! gives Black
Others: chances for a defence, but not 22...Jtc5?
a) 10...1rd8 11 0-0 SM6 12 c4 0-0 13 23 *f3 Wxd6 24 £>f6+! gxf6 25 Wxf6
&c3 c6 14 flbl fie8 15 Ab2 ®c7 16 Wf3 *f8 26 %7+ <*e7 27 %5+ ^d7 28
±d7 17 £>e2 Ad6 (17...fiad8 18 £lg3 flfdl and wins) 22 fia3! £\f4 (if 22...f6 23
jtc8 19 d5! and White has some plus ^3h6+ gxh6 24 fig3+ ifefS 25 Wb5 wins,
here, G.Kasparov-N.Short, London or 22...fied8 23 fig3 ft 24 £)h6+ 25
(rapid) 1993) 18 4)g3 iLxg3 19 fxg3 fie7 Aa3 g6 26 <Slxg6+ hxg6 27 fixg6 fld7 28
20 d5 Hae8 21 Axft fixe3 22 ±e5 fixf3 %4H forces mate) 23 fig3 QSgS 24 d7
23 ^.xc7 fixfl+ 24 'i'xfl with equality. fied8 25 £)h6+!! 1-0. If 25...gxh6 26 #h5
b) \0..Wd7 11 0-0 £rf6 12 c4 0-0 13 Wxa4 27 £lxg6 hxg6 28 fixg6+ <^f8 29
£)c3 (if 13 i.b2P! b5! 14 £>c3 bxc4 15 Jtf6 and White wins.
4lxc4 fib8 and Black is at least slighdy b) 13...^7! is the simplest. After 14
better) 13...c6 14 ®d3 £lg4 15 h3 £)xe3 l.b2 0-0 15 £)c3 a6 16 «Td4 c5 17 Wd3
16 fxe3 b6 17 Ab2 i.a6 18 fiacl fiad8 i.d6 18 h3 fie8 19 £if5 Axf5 20 WxB
19 fif3 f5 20 &e2 fif7 21 «b3 and game fie5 21 Wd3 fiae8 Black is alright,
is unclear, S.Ganguly-K.Sundararajan, O.Rajala-R.Pomell, correspondence 1977.
Indian Championship 2004. 14 «f3 cxd5 15 cxd5 0-0 16 &a3
11 0-0 Slf6 12 c4 c6 13 d5

16...£ie8?
13...#d8?! Black is fighting for control of d6, but
It is not really clear what the queen is he has only two minor pieces that can
supposed to do from d8. Some alterna¬ help to cover, whereas White has three.
tives needed consideration: The coming exchanges only aid White.

83
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Instead: side, allowing the rooks to go to the sev¬

a) 16...2b8?! 17 Sdl b5 has the minus enth row; while after 29...Sb6 30 *9ic4
of weakening c6. After 18 flbl a6 19 and White wins.
i,b2 Wd6 20 £\ac2 2e8 21 £>d4 White is
much better.
b) 16...jSe8 17 “57ac4 Ac5 18 Jlb2 <57c4
is a better defence, and while the position
might appear bad for Black after 19
fiadl, he can use tactics to keep the bal¬
ance: 19...%5 20 d6 ±,d7 21 Id5 Wh6
22 £ie5 4lg5! 23 Wdl Axe3 24 £7xd7
<S3e4 25 fxe3 Wxe3+ 26 $hl £>f2+ 27
2xf2 «xf2 28 ±c3 2e3 29 Sc5 2d8
with counterplay.
17 £iac4 £>d6 18 ±b2 £>xc4 19
47xc4 &f6 29...1b6 30 Ba7 a4 31 Scc7
This move does not look good, but Or 31 *d2 b3 32 axb3 axb3 33 *cl
Black is getting quite desperate in his de¬ b2+ 34 *bl 5 35 2cc7 f4 36 Ixd7 Ixd7
fensive efforts. 37 2xd7 fxe3 38 fxe3 2b3 and Black has
20 i.xf6 Wxf6 21 #xf6 gxf6 good drawing chances.
31 ...b3 32 axb3 axb3 33 <S7c4
If 33 2cb7 2b8 34 2xb6 2xb6 35
£k4 iLb5! and Black is defending with¬
out risks.

This ending should be more or less lost

for Black.
22 Sfdl Hd8 23 Id4 b5 24 £>e3 a5
25 *f1 fia6 26 ficl J,d7 27 flc7 b4
28 4>e1 448 29 Hdc4? 33...Hb4?
White fails to control his opponent’s Now Black is starting to drift. Instead,
only possible counterplay, the advance of the clever 33...Jle8! would have solved
the b-pawn. The precise move was 29 most of his problems. After 34 Hcb7
'ffed2! when the king comes to the queen- Hxb7 35 flxb7 2xd5 36 Sxb3 White has

84
 The Evans Gambit with 5...M,e7

only a spiritual advantage. fxe5 14 dxe7 »xe7 15 Wb5+ c6 16 Wxe5

34 Hab7 flxb7 35 Ixb7 J,a4?? Wxe5 17 dxe5 Bg8 18 £ld2 Af5 and the
35... jk.f5 36 £te3 M,c2 was necessary as game was more or less equal in
it’s the only way Black stays alive, though V.Aronson-M.Umansky, correspondence
after 37 ®cl2 White still has good winning 1978.
chances. 8...£sxc4 9 Axh6 gxh6
36 fib4 Ae8 37 <§ie3 <iiel 38 flxb3 Or 9...^>d6 10 Wxe5 £)xc4 11 l.xg7
4>d6 39 *e2 J,d7 40 Hb6+ *e5 41 fig8 12 ®'xe4 (12 0-0 d5 13 £lfd2 a5! is
g3 Sh8 42 Sb7 Hd8 43 *f3 h5 44 good for Black, who threatens the
flb4 J.g4+ 45 *g2 1-0 manoeuvre ...Ba6-g6 in some lines: 14
£>xe4 dxe4 15 «ih6 J.h3 16 J-g7 Sa6! 17
Game 29 gxh3 Be6 18 Wxa5 Exg7+ and Black was
D.Pirrot-F.Jenni much better, G.Binder-M.Rocius,
Czppelle la Grande 2002 correspondence 2001) 12...Bxg7 13 0-0
d5 14 «e5 *f8 15 Bel '#d6 16 We2
1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £ic6 3 Ac4 J.c5 4 b4 J,h3 17 g3 f6 18 <Sibd2 <£g8 19 c4 c6
±xb4 5 c3 Ae7 6 *b3!? with a mess in A.Morozevich-E.Bacrot,
This was Labourdonnais’ novelty in Sarajevo 2000 1 0 fcc4 exd4 11 cxd4 c6!
1835. It is interesting that it was almost This is much better than ll...d6?! 12
another 100 years before 6 ®b3 was tried 0-0 0-0 13 <5lc3 c6 14 Sabi, which gives
again in a tournament game. White the superior game.
6...£sh6 7 d4 ®a5

12 d5!
8*b5 White has no choice here. This is
8 ®a4 is strongly met by 8...^xc4 9 chess, and often you have to prevent your
'txc4 d5! not (9...exd4?! 10 J.xh6 gxh6 opponent’s ideas with simple moves. In¬
11 cxd4 d5 12 exd5 Bg8 13 g3 Ah3 14 stead after 12 0-0 d5! 13 exd5 Wxd5 14
£\e5 l.d6 15 £>c3 4>f8 16 ft f6 17 £>d3 Wc2 Jtg4 15 £lbd2 Ae6 16 Ifcl 0-0
®c8+ 18 <S?f2 and White is better) 10 Black is slighdy better, R.Zelcic-
exd5 e4 11 £k5 f6 12 4xh6 gxh6 13 d6 D.Sermek, Pula 2001.

85
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

12...i.f6 13 e5 ±g7 two pawns. I do not want to give a more

conclusive evaluation than this, though it
seems likely to me that White could be a
little better.
14.. .b5! 15 #g4 0-0 16 43bd2
Also after 16 0-0 £6! 17 a4 fxe5 18 axb5
e4 19 4ld4 Wf6 20 Sa4 e3 Black has a
clear advantage.
16.. .f6! 17 0-0fxe5
White does not have compensation for
the material. It is as simple as that.
18 Sael «f6 19 #b4 a5 20 Wc5
We6 21 a4 bxa4 22 43xe5 #d5 23
14 d6? Wxd5+ cxd5 24 f4 Ia6 25 Sal Sxd6
White needs to fight for control of the 26 Sxa4 Sa6
centre and after this move he loses all his
flexibility. Probably he was afraid of
something like 14 0-0?! d6 15 dxc6 dxe5
16 43xe5 0-0 17 c7 Wd6 18 f4 Ae6 19
^c3 Wb6+ 20 ^?hl Sac8 and Black has
the advantage.
However, White had a stronger option
in 14 43c3 f6 (if 14...0-0?! 15 0-0 d6 16
dxc6 dxe5 17 c7 Wf6 18 Sacl or
16.. .bxc6 17 fifdl i.e6 18 Wa4 d5 19
Had and White is at least slightly better)
15 43e4 Wa5+ 16 ‘i’dl 'Hfxd5+ (not
16.. .cxd5? 17 £>d6+ *>d8 18 #xc8+ Sxc8 Black is winning.
19 43xb7+ or 17...‘S?e7 18 1Brg4! and 27 43b3 d6 28 43f3 Ad7 29 Sxa5
White wins) 17 ®xd5 cxd5 18 43d6+ &e7 Sxa5 30 43xa5 5xf4 31 Sdl d4 32
(if 18...<i?f8 19 fiel! and White retains the 4ib3 J.a4 33 Sd3 Ab5 34 Sd2 d3 35
pressure) 19 43 f5+ ‘i’f7 20 43xg7 4?xg7 43c 1 Ac3 36 Sdl d2 37 43xd2 l.xd2
21 Bel with fine compensation for the 0-1
 The Evans Gambit with 5...k.e7

Summary
5.. JLe7 is a rather solid-looking move, but should not be disregarded for that. Rather it
is an attempt to return the pawn and fight for the centre. White can choose between
different ways of contesting this strategy, all leading to interesting play, but no clear
path to an advantage is apparent. 7 JLc2 and 8 1Hrxd4 is probably the most challenging
line, though it all depends on the White player’s style and mood on the day.

1 e4 e5 2 Qf3 £)c6 3 !,c4 ±c5 4 b4 Jlxb4 5 c3 ±e7 (D) 6 d4

6lh3 -Game 29
6.. .£ia5 (D) 7 J.e2
7 4ixe5 - Game 28
7.. .exd4 8 #xd4 (D)
8.. .41.6 - Game 25
8.. .d6 - Game 26
8.. .d5 - Game 27

6...Zha5 8Wxd4

87
 IE ¥1
CHAPTER SEVEN] mtmtBttt,
I4T
m m
The Evans Gambit
with 5...itc5

1 e4 e5 2 ®f3 £>c6 3 1x4 ±c5 4 b4 d4, which gives Black the extra option of
Axb4 5 c3 J.c5 7..JLb6, transposing to one of the lines
The black bishop returns to its place of after 5.. JLa5 (see Game 41).
origin, which somehow seems counter¬
intuitive. Now White will be able to ad¬
vance rapidly in the centre, gaining time
for his attack. Black has some ideas of his
own, of course; nevertheless, the coun¬
terplay against the centre does not seem
sufficient to prefer this move to the more
flexible 5...jLa5, which is the subject of
the next two chapters.
After 5,..J»c5 play normally continues
6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6 8 cxd4 Ab6, reaching
a standard position seen in all the games
in this chapter. Deviations from this se¬
quence are covered in the notes to Game 6...Ab6?! is inferior, transposing to
30 below. 5..Jta5 6 d4 Jlb6?! (see the notes to
Game 42).
Game 30 7 0-0
G.Gielge-E.Poscher Instead, 7 £>g5?! is a violation of just
Correspondence 1992 about all existing attacking principles. The
following variation is simply good for
1 e4 e5 2 <?3f3 <53c6 3 ±c4 ±c5 4 b4 Black: 7...£>h6 8 £\xf7 £>xf7 9 J,xf7+
JLxb4 5 c3 !.c5 6 d4 4x17 10 ®h5+ g6 11 #xc5 d5! with the
This is more accurate than 6 0-0 d6 7 initiative, e.g. 12 exd5 He8+ 13 sfiTl He 5

88
 The Evans Gambit with 5...k,c5

14 c4 tth4 15 £k!2 #h5 and Black wins ferent situation from on the previous
because of 16 £3 Jth3!. move. Now Black has an unpleasant
However, 7 cxd4!? is possible, and then choice:
7...Ab4+ 8 *fl (better than 8 JLd2 J„xd2 bl) 8...&e5 9 £lxf7! 4&xf7 10 l,xf7+
9 <$lxd2, since after 8 it?f1 Black must be i>xf7 11 ®t5+ &8 12 #xc5+ d6 13
careful about the b4-bishop), Wc4 We7 14 l.a3 Ae6 15 Wfxd3 c5 16
4*3d2 He8 17 fifel <£)h6 18 c4 b6 19 Ab2
and White was much better in E.Moser-
P.Dumancic, Aschach 1999.
b2) 8...£ih6 9 #lxf7! £)Xf7 10 jLxf7+
&xf7 11 1®rh5+ g6 (or ll...*f8 12 Wxc5+
d6 13 Wd5 Wf6 14 Wxd3 Ae6 15 f4 with
a clear advantage) 12 Wfxc 5 d6 13 Wfe 3
(13 Wd5+ Jit6 14 ®xd3 is also good)
13...We7 14 <§Td2 Se8 15 f4 <^g8 16
Wxd3 ±e6 17 ±b2 d5 18 c4! and White
was better in V.Ragozin-A.Ilyin Zhenev-
sky, Moscow 1930.
when we could imagine play continu¬ 8 cxd4 Ab6
ing like this:
a) 8...£if6 9 d5 ^3a5 10 ®c2 ^5xc4 (if
10.. .0-0 11 e5 ^e8 12 J.d3 and White is
much better, due to the threat of Wa4) 11
#xc4 a5 12 e5 b6 13 £gl Aa6 14 Wb3
•S3g8 15 §dc3 and White has compensa¬
tion for the pawn.
b) 8...jte7 9 d5 Jk.f6 10 dxc6 Axal 11
#d5 Zhhb 12 JLxh6 0-0 was played in
N.Doghri-N.Stevanovic, Yerevan Olym¬
piad 1996. Now White can keep the ad¬
vantage with 13 cxd7 jtxd7 14 Jlg5 Wc8
15 £)bd2 b5 16 &d3 c6 17 Wc5 tfe6 18 This could be called the ‘standard posi¬
<?(lb3. tion’ in the Evans Gambit. Standard, that
7.. .d6 is, for chess games played in the 19th cen¬
This is the best. Other moves are sim¬ tury?. In the 20th century it has been lim¬
ply weaker: ited more to correspondence games,
a) 7...^ge7?l 8 cxd4 l.b6 9 £\g5 d5 10 probably? because these kind of romantic
exd5 <53h5 11 d6 OdxcA 12 Wa4+ c6 13 openings were especially popular in the¬
Wxc4 iTxd6 14 fcf7+ *d7 15 £k3 and matic tournaments before the introduc¬
White stands much better. tion of strong chess-playing programs.
b) 7...d3?! 8 £\g5! is a completely dif¬ Now White has two main options: 9

89
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

d5 and 9 £k3. The first we shall look at Another chess legend, Johannes
now, while the second will be covered in Zukertort, gave the line 12...c5?! 13 e5!
Games 33-35. dxe5 14 £lxe5 (Ag6 15 'tfhS Wd6 16
9 d5 ffael JLc7 17 ^3e4 with a deadly attack.
Adolf Anderssen, one of the strongest 13£ie2c5
players in the 19th century, has the copy¬
right of this move. Unfortunately for his
family, chess players do not like to pay for
intellectual rights...
9.. .£ia5
Other moves are weaker (see the anno¬
tations to move 9 in Game 31).
10 Ab2 £ie7
That we are dealing with really old stuff
can be seen from the next note:
a) 10...f6 11 ±d3 £>e7 12 £>c3 c5 13 e5
dxe5 14 £\xe5 0-0 15 #h5 f5 16 Sadi
and White is better according to Bilguer’s After 13...f6 14 ^Afd4 c5 15 £\f5 JLxf5
Handbuch. 16 exf5 ^Je5 17 £)f4 White is better ac¬
More interesting is: cording to Matsukevich.
b) 10...SM6 11 Ad3 0-0 12 &c3 c6 13 The idea of the text move is simple:
£ie2 jLg4, when White can try. Black wants to keep control over the d4-
bl) 14 Wd2 cxd5 15 exd5 Axf3 16 square. Now White has two equally good
gxB £lxd5 17 i.xh7+ &xh7 18 Wxd5 possibilities: 14 3Scl as in the next game,
Sc8 19 Wh5+ 4g8 20 Wg4 and White and 14 #012 as below.
has some compensation for the material. 14 #d2 f6 15 4b 1 ±c7 16 flacl
b2) 14 4lg3! is probably stronger Sb8 17 £sg3 b5 18 £sf5 Bb7 19 g4!
though, and after 14...cxd5 15 exd5 h6! (if Typical for this kind of position. White
15.. .5c8 16 h3 i.d7 17 £>g5! and White is has good play for the pawn, if nothing
better) 16 h3 JLd7 17 Sel White has more.
good compensation for the pawn. Basi¬ 19.. .Ab8 20 figl &e5 21 J.xe5?!
cally it is hard to think up a situation In this structure the dark-squared
where Black’s extra b7-pawn will be a real bishop is very useful. It can attack the g7-
asset before move 40. pawn and the knight on a5 at the same
11 Ad3 time. Better therefore was 21 4Txe5 fxe5
Pawn grabbing can be bad for your 22 f4 c4 23 Jle2 and White would have
health: 11 Axg7? flg8 12 &f6 £\xc4 13 had full compensation.
'#a4+ Wd7 14 Wxc4 Sxg2+!! 15 *xg2 21.. .fxe5 22 £ig5 Ie8 23 Sg3 h6?!
Wh3+ 16 4>hl lrxf3+ 17 *gl &h3 and Violating the old rule of not advancing
Black wins, as given by Anderssen. pawns where you are defending, which
11. ..0-0 12 £>c3 £sg6 seems to give White a helping hand here.

90
 The Evans Gambit with 5...&.c5

24 £if3 Hf8 25 2h3 Sxh4 Sxh8 34 Sxh8 Ad7 35 h4 c3 36

Black still has problems with his two Scl &g7 37 Sh5 Sb4 38 Sxc3 Sxe4 39
passive pieces: £la5 and Ab8. Sb3 Sb4 40 Sg5+ and Black should
25.. .£)c4? probably allow the draw by 40... ^h 7 41
25...c4 26 Ae2 a6! was much stronger, Sg5+ etc., rather than take a lot of
with the obvious plan of getting the chances by running with the king.
bishop back into play after something like 29 £if5+ &g8 30 #g5 Axf5 31 gxf5
27 Sgl Aa7 28 Adi b4 etc. Generally 1-0
after 25...c4, Black should be better. After 31...Wd8 White wins by 32 ®h5
26 Axc4 bxc4 27 Sgl?! etc.
Why not just take the pawn? After the
simple 27 Sxc4 Bbl+ 28 <£g2 Sf7 29 Game 31
Sg3 White has the advantage. A .Salygo-Boshoer
27.. .®e8 Correspondence 1971

1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £)c6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4

lxb4 5 c3 Ac5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6
8 cxd4 Ab6 9 d5

28 4bxh6 + !
White has to time to lose and need to
act now. If 28 g5? h5 29 £\3h4 g6 30
<$lh6+ &g7 31 Bf3 Sxf3 32 4?3x£3 ®a4
and Black is close to winning. 9...£ia5
28...*h7?? As promised in the previous game, we
Black takes his opponent at his word will give a large number of alternatives
and declines the sacrifice. Actually, accep¬ here, though none of them seems espe¬
tance by 28...gxh6 was forced, and then cially appealing for Black:
Black can put up an amazing defence to a) 9...£lb8 10 Ab2 £)f6 11 e5 dxe5 12
keep the position unclear: 29 Wxh6 (not £ke5 0-0 13 £lc3 <$11x17 14 <$1B! Be8 15
29 Sxh6? Sf4! 30 £)h4 #a4 31 £lf5 c3 <$lc2 <$lc5 16 <$lg3 with good attacking
and Black wins) 29...«re7 30 Wh8+ *f7 chances, A.Anderssen-C.Mayet, Berlin
31 Sh7+ <4>g6 32 <S3h4+!P (32 Sh6+ <&f7 match 1865.
is a draw by repetition) 32...1Brxh4 33 b) 9...<$le5? 10 <$lxc5 dxe5 11 Aa3

91
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Ad4 12 4?3d2 Jlxal 13 #xal £6 14 £4 £3 ,&,f5 (when Black kept the balance in
gave White a strong attack in Gon- G.Neumann-W.Steinitz, Paris 1867),
charenko-Osipjenko, Kiev 1956, e.g. White should play 20 flel! (the white
14...exf4 15 e5 f5 16 e6 &Sf6 17 Hxf4 a6 rook wants to enter the game as soon as
18 flxf5 b5 19 e7 Wd7 20 flxf6 and wins, possible!) 20...'Brf4 21 fle3 with a strong
c) 9...43ce7 10 e5 attack.
10 J,b2 £3e7 11 J.d3 0-0 12 ^c3
£3g6 13 4Be2 c5 14 flcl

Here again Black has a long list of un¬

pleasant alternatives, probably making
him wish he had played 9...(?3a5 instead: Instead of 14 Wd2 as in Game 30.
cl) 10...dxe5 11 £lxe5 #d6 12 #e2 ±d4 14.. .Hb8 15 e5
13 Af4 Af5 14 £b5+ c6 15 dxc6 0-0-0 White can always return to the plan
16 cxb7+ lt?xb7 17 <53d2 with a decisive seen in the previous game, i.e. 15 #d2 f6
attack for White, A.Anderssen-J .Kipping, 16 *hl ±c7 17 £>g3 b5 18 £)f5 b4 19
Manchester match 1857. flgl Ab6 20 g4 with an attack in
c2) 10...‘S3g6 11 e6 fxe6 12 dxe6 4l8e7 A. Anders sen-J. Zukertort, Barmen 1869.
13 <?3g5 0-0 14 4?3c3 and White has a 15.. .±c7
strong attack according to Matsukevich. Black has options all over the place,
c3) 10...i.g4 11 Wa4+'td7 12 i.b5 c6 but they will hardly change the general
13 e6! Ixe6 (or 13...fxe6 14 ®xg4 cxb5 (and possibly slightly vague) evaluation,
15 Wxg7 &)g6 16 £bZ) 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 e.g. 15...dxe5 16 Jhtg6 hxg6 17 Axe5 Ba8
JLd3 and White is much better. 18 h3 and White has compensation.
c4) 10...4bh6 is an old Steinitz idea. In 16 4lc3 a6 17 £3e4!
my opinion this gives White excellent White can also try 17 Axg6!? (at some
chances after 11 4t3c3 0-0 12 i§Lxh6 gxh6 levels seemingly anti-positional, but at
13 (Bed dxe5 14 (Bxe5 *53f5 15 ?3g4 ifehS others quite attractive) which forces Black
16 Ibl #h4 17 Ixb6 axb6 18 *al+ f6 into 17...fxg6 (if 17...hxg6?! 18 exd6 itxd6
19 4Bgxf6 4Bg7 and now, rather than 20 19 4Be4 and White regains the material
g3?! ®h3 21 Sel #f5 22 ±e2 h5 23 while retaining a better position) 18 e6 b5
4bxh5 Wg6 24 flcl flf7 25 (Bhf6 fle7 26 19 Bel We7 20 Bc2 (Bc4 21 Acl with an

92
 The Evans Gambit with 5...h.c5

unclear game. Nevertheless, the text 20...dxe5 21 #xh6 fxg5 22 JLxg6 fxg6 23
move seems to set Black sufficient prob¬ Wxgj&E) 21 3txg6 dxe5 22 ttxh6 fxg6 23
lems. 18rxg6+ with equality.
17...b6 18 43fg5

20...43e5
18...h6? 20...43f4! was a stronger defence,
18...dxe5 was necessary, when White though White can still go for it with 21
can try to develop an initiative in various 43e61! fxe6 (if 21..JLxe6 22 Wd2! wins) 22
ways: %4+ <&f7 23 Wxf4! (23 %7+ <£e8 24
a) 19 43xh7?l is probably questionable Jtg6+ 43xg6 25 Wxg6+ Bf7 26 Wg8+
after 19...Ie8 20 43hg5 (if 20 Abl &xh7 goes nowhere) 23...e5 24 #e4 Wxf6 25 f4
21 d6 ^g8 22 dxc7 Wxc7 23 Sel and with a close to winning attack.
two pawns could be too big a price for 21 i.xe5 dxe5 22 #f3 He8
the attack, e.g. 23 43d6? Bd8 24 Axg6
Bxd6 Black even wins) 20...43f4 21 g3
43xd3 22 Wxd3 &£5 23 Bfdl c4 24 ®f3
#d7 25 h3 and White has some practical
compensation, though Black is for pref¬
erence.
b) 19 ®h5 h6 20 d6 J.xd6 21 43xf7
43 f4! 22 43xh6+! (not 22 43xd8? 43xh5 23
43xd6 43f4 24 43xc8 43xd3 25 43e7+ <i?h7
26 43dc6 43xc6 27 43xc6 Bbc8 28 43xe5
43xb2 and Black wins) 22...gxh6 23 Wxh6
Sf5 24 Bfdl Jte6 25 43xd6 Wg5 26
Wxg5+ Ixg5 27 g3 43xtl3 28 flxd3 Axa2 23 4le6?
29 43e4 B,f5 30 g4 and White remains Here 23 Ah7+! *f8 24 43e4 ®d7 25
better, keeping some initiative. h3! wins comfortably. Black is unable to
19 43f6+! gxf6 20 exf6! bring any of his extra pieces to the de¬
Stronger than 20 Wh5 fxg5 (or fence of the king. 23 Wg3 also wins,

93
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

though it requires a little technique. And after 10...4!3e7 11 flel Black took the
23.. .2xe6 24 #g4+ 4>f8 25 #g7+ bishop anyway: 11...<$3xc4 12 Wa4+ 'tfd7
*e8 26 dxe6 J,xe6 27 fifdl 13 Wxc4 0-0 14 C\c3 (weak is 14 J,g5P!
White is still better here, but Black re¬ dxe5 15 ?3xe5 Wf5 and Black was much
tains some chances. better, I.Kolisch-A.Anderssen, Paris
27.. .jk,d6 28 J.xa6 £>c6 29 J,b5 *d7 match 1860) 14...dxe5 15 <$3xe5 Wf5 16
30 2d2 <*c7 31 Axc6 4>xc6 32 flcdl &e3 &)g6 17 <53xg6 Wxg6 18 JLxb6 cxb6
c4? 19 Hc7 and White retains some initiative.
Black had drawing chances after 11 ®a4+ J,d7 12 lrxc4 £>e7
32.. .1a8 33 f4 exf4 34 Wxh6 Sxa2 35 12...dxe5P! 13 4?)xe5 Wf6 14 <$3xd7
Sxd6+ Wxd6 36 Sxd6+ <*xd6 37 #xf4+ <sfcxd7 looks awkward, and this appears to
>fec6. be the deeper truth as well, e.g. 15 Wg4+
33 WxhG c3 34 2d3 b5 35 2xc3+ <&e8 16 &g5 Wfg6 17 43c3 <S3f6 18 Sael+
Now the smoke has cleared. <&f8 19 Wb4+ &g8 20 &xf6 Wxf6 21
35.. .<4>d7 36 We3 b4 37 Sxd6+ 1-0 £le4 Wg6 22 <2?hl h5 23 f4 and White
was much better in P.Morphy-H.Bird,
Game 32 London match 1858.
G.Coleman-N. Hawkins 13fle1
Correspondence 1993 Interesting is 13 e6!P fxe6 14 dxe6 Jtc6
15 Ag5! (but not 15 43g5 0-0 16 Wc2
1 e4 e5 2 &f3 &c6 3 1x4 l.c5 4 b4 43g6 17 h4 Wf6 18 Ab2 Wf4 and Black is
l,xb4 5 c3 1lc5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4 much better according to Geza Maroczy)
8 cxd4 lb6 9 d5 <?3a5 10 e5!?

and now we should have a look at:

A risky and also somewhat underesti¬ a) 15...0-0? 16 Wh4 ie8 17 £>bd2 h6
mated move. I do not find life easy for 18 Bfel was played in H.Montgomery-
Black in these lines. W.Allison, New York 1857. It does not
10...<53x04 look as if Black can escape from suffer¬
It is hard to resist taking the bishop ing. The game continued 18...hxg5 19
(what else was the idea behind 9...4tla5). £)xg5 Wc8 20 #h7+ &f8 21 fh8+ £ig8

94
 The Evans Gambit with 5...k.c5

22 e7+ Bxe7 23 Bxe7 and White won, pawns, with no time for aggression.
18...d5 19 Jlxh6 gxh6 20 Wxh6
while if
SfB 21 Be5 ±e8 22 Bg5+ 4>g6 23 Bxg6+ Game 33
ifxg6 24 ®xg6+ White is still much bet¬ Y.Estrin-P. Angelov
ter. Correspondence 1970
b) 15..Jtx£3 16 gxB d5 is more sound,
e.g. 17 Wf4 SfB 18 Wh4 Wd6 19 Bel 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 4ic6 3 Ac4 !,c5 4 b4
Sf5 20 4ld2 with an unclear position. J.xb4 5 c3 ±c5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6
13.. .0-0 14 Ag5 f6 8 cxd4 J.b6 9 £ic3
The most radical defence. Instead This more elastic option is probably
14.. .dxe5 15 4lxe5 gives Black problems also the strongest. I must admit that I am
with the knight on e7, while after 14...Be8 quite comfortable sharing this opinion
15 e6 fxe6 16 dxe6 Ac6 17 4lbd2 Black with our great grandfathers Paul Morphy
has problems with the safety of his king. and Mikhail Chigorin.
15 exf6 gxf6 16 J.h6 Se8 17 4lc3
<Slg6 18 <Sle4 #e7 19 Sacl £>e5 20
&xe5 ^xe5 21 $Ld2\ Wf5 22 Se2
Ab5

9...±g4
Besides this move and 9...4la5 (see the
next two games). Black also has the fol¬
lowing options:
Black is defending quite well. If instead a) 9..JLd7 is perfectly possible. One
22..,a6 23 a4, then White can follow with could easily imagine play continuing 10 e5
24 Hc3, swinging the rook across into the dxe5 11 Bel 4lge7 12 4)g5!? (or 12 41x65
attack. 4lxe5 13 dxe5 JLe6 14 Jlxe6 fxe6 15
23 4lxf6+ #xf6 24 #xb5 Sxe2 25 Wb3 4kl5 16 Aa3 with an unclear posi¬
lfxe2 Sf8 26 J.e3 Se8 27 %4+ tion) 12...0-0 13 tth5 &f5 14 Axf7+ (not
1^6 28 Wxg6+ hxg6 29 J,xb6 cxb6 14 dxe5? Axf2+ 15 &xf2 Wd4+ and
30 *f1 <4>f7 31 Sc7+ Se7 32 Hxe7+ Black wins) 14...^h8 15 d5 jLxf2+ 16
4>xe7 33 h4 b5 'k-V* 4>xf2 Ag6 17 t4i4 4lxd5 Bxf7
18 <i>gl
A draw cannot be avoided as each king 19 '#xh7+ Axh7 20 4Wf7+ i>g8 21
will have to keep watch on the opposing 4lxd8 Bxd8 22 4\xd5 Bxd5 23 Ae3 with

95
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

an unclear endgame. compensation, though the position is not

b) 9...‘$W>?! looks dangerous because desirable.
of 10 e5 dxe5 11 la3!

when we can imagine the following This is the best way. Instead 10...1xf3
lines: 11 gxf3 Wf6 12 le3 0-0-0 13 5345 %6+
bl) ll...£la5 (Unzicker’s recommenda¬ 14 ‘A’hl leaves White much better, while
tion) 12 Ab5+ c6 13 dxe5 Wxdl 14 after 10...1d7 11 e5 53ge7 12 lg5 dxe5
laxdl £ld7 15 *he4 ±c5 16 lxc5 53xc5 13 53d5 Wc8 14 lxe7 53xe7 15 53xe7
17 lxc6+ 53xc6 18 £3xc5 and White re¬ &xe7 16 lei lxb5 17 lxe5+ <*>18 18
tains some pressure. lxb5 White has good compensation. It is
b2) ll...lxd4 12 Wh3 Wd7 (not not easy to see how Black is going to get
12...±e6? 13 lxe6 fke6 14 Wxe6+ £>e7 his pieces to work together.
15 <53x04 exd4 16 ttfel 43fg8 17 £M5 and 11 Ae3
White won in the blindfold game, White only got equality out of 11 lxc6
P.Morphy-C.Stanley, New York 1857) 13 bxc6 12 la3 lxf3 13 gxfi Wg5+ 14
<5lxd4 <53x44 14 ®)2 with a strong attack. &hl 53e7 15 53e2 53g6 16 Sgl Wf6 17
10 Ab5 ^3 &g8 18 JiLcl h6 in J.Blackburne-
Weaker is 10 Wa4?! ±d7 when White W.Steinitz, London match 1862.
has no really good options. After 11 11 ...53ge7
Wb3? £3a5 12 ±xf7+ &f8 13 #c2 <4>xf7 This is the right knight. Black never got
White has no compensation for the piece, his pieces to work after 11...53ce7P! 12
e.g. 14 e5 <53h6 15 lxh6 gxh6 16 Hfel 1x4 53f6 13 Wb3 lxf3 14 gxf3 Wfe8 15
dxe5 17 dxe5 le6 18 Badl Wctt 19 53)44 a4 la5 16 53e2 Bb8 17 &hl c6 18 Sgl
<?3c6 20 <51x66 Wxe6 and Black won step d5 19 ld3 h6 20 53g3 g6 21 e5 53d7 22
by step, A.Dambacher-M.Bock, corre¬ ®a3 and White had excellent compensa¬
spondence 2000. White should probably tion in CSchlechter-Mainter, Vienna
retreat again with 11 ®dl and then if 1898.
1 l...<53f6 12 e5 dxe5 13 dxe5 5lg4 14 lg5 12a4a5 13 Ac4 #e8?!
Wc8 15 <53)45 le6 16 1@ra4 with some This move contains a deep strategic

96
 The Evans Gambit with 5...M,c5

idea. Black is attempting to give mate 16...hxg4 17 £sg5 d5 18 exd5 Wh5

down the h-file. However, in the process 19 f4 £>b4 20 ^xc7 Axc7 21 ®e6 +
he will have to open up in front of his *f7 22 £>xc7 4£lc8 23 d6+ *g6
king, which seems rather dubious. Better
was 13..Jth5! 14 &hl £lb4 15 d5
16 Jlxb6 cxb6 17 Bel when the game
remains unclear.
14£lb5 f5?!
Black is following his plan consistently,
but it was still better to play 14...Wd7.
15h3h5

24 £)b5?
Here a number of moves would still
lead to a full point. The clearest line is 24
±f7+! *xf7 25 Wb3+ ^>£8 26 d7 <£)d6 27
£lxa8 &e7 (or 27...1rh2+ 28 ^£2 ^>e7 29
£k7 %3+!P 30 -4>e2 Wxg2+ 31 Bf2 We4
32 Bel <i’xd7 33 47)e6 and wins) 28
d8W+ &xd8 29 ^£2 g3+ 30 ‘i’el Be8 31
If the Romans had known chess, they Bel '#f7 32 ®xf7 Bxe3+ 33 *d2 Bd3+
would characterise a position like this as 34 *e2 <53xf7 35 £>c7 Ba3 36 Bf3 Bxa4
•panta rei’ (everything flows). It is not yet 37 Bxg3 with a winning endgame.
too late to play 15.JLh5 16 d5 ±xf3 17 24...<§3b6 25 Ab3??
l'xf3 ^e5 18 «e2 %5 19 i.xb6 cxb6 A complete meltdown. Some alterna¬
20 exf5 ‘S3xf5 21 J.d3 4tlxd3 22 ®xd3, tives need investigation:
though White is much better now. a) 25 Bel BaeB leaves White defence¬
16 hxg4 less as well.
16 Bel! was even stronger, e.g. b) 25 i.e2 #h2+ 26 <*£2 Bh3 is also
16...^b4 (if 16...i,xf3 17 Wxf3) 17 hxg4 very bad for White. After 27 i,xg4 #g3+
hxg4 18 43g5 d5 19 exd5 Wt5 20 £>e6+ 28 ^gl Wxe3+ 29 B£2 ^d3 30 £.xh3
^g8 21 stifl 4!3exd5 22 £lexc7 Jtxc7 23 Wxf2+ 31 &h2 #xf4+ 32 4?gl *e3+ 33
43xc7 Bd8 24 Bbl and White wins. riih2 Bh8 Black is close to winning.
Over the following moves White has c) 25 jle6! £36d5 26 Ba3 seems to be
so many wins available that there is no the best chance, but Black still takes the
reason to give them. Until suddenly initiative. After 26...Bae8 27 4hc7 ^3xc7
White suffers from a sensational break¬ 28 Jtxf5! <4>xf5 29 dxc7 the position is
down. ‘equal’ according to my computer, but in

97
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

reality it continues to be very compli¬ in these lines, Black can hardly find a bet¬
cated. At least I have not found a clear ter move than this. Of course, this would
win for Black here. not stop people from trying, would it?
25...£>d3 26 #xd3 g3 0-1 a) 10...1U7 11 ±d3 h6 (if 11...ft 12
Now there was nothing to do but re¬ J.h4 £>e7 13 e5 fxe5 14 dxe5 0-0 15 e6!
sign. with better play for White) 12 Ah4 <$ie7
13 J.xe7 Wxe7 14 Bel c6 15 d5 ±g4 16
Game 34 e5 dxe5 17 Wd2 jtxf3 18 flxe5 Wxe5 19
M .Chigorin-W .Steinitz Bel Wxel+ 20 Wxel+ &f8 21 gxf3 h5 22
jLondon 1883 We5 Hh6 23 4)e4 cxd5 24 £lg5 and
White maintained the initiative, J.Von
I e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 ±c4 ±c5 4 b4 Minckwitz-W.Steinitz, Baden Baden
i.xb4 5 c3 J.a5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4 1870.
8 cxd4 t b6 9 £>c3 £ia5 b) 10...£le7 leads to very violent play
The knight attacks the most active after 11 4?)d5 f6 12 JLxf6 gxf6 13 £lxf6+
white piece, though the price for this is *f8 14 £>g5 £>xc4 15 Wh5 *g7 16 Wf7+
pretty high: White retains an advantage in &h6. Now White has to choose between
time. a draw with 17 Wh5+ and different ways
10 ig5 to continue the attack. The direct 17
The so-called Goring Attack. Another £>g4+?! J.xg4 18 #ftf &h5 19 <^f7 £}g8
interesting strategic idea is 10 Jtd3!? &se7 20 Wxh8 #ft 21 Wxh7+ £)h6 22 £)xh6
II <2id5 0-0 12 £ixb6 axb6 13 d5 in order Wxh6 23 Wf7+ Wg6 24 Wxc4 ±£3 25 g3
to dominate the black knight on a5. After Jk.xe4 seems to leave Black better. But
13...&g6 14 Kc2 c5 15 Sbl Ag4 16 Ae2 White might try 17 Bad! and if 17...£)g6
White had fair compensation for the 18 fixc4 d5 19 exd5 ^xg5 20 #g7! with a
pawn in H.Bird-M.Chigorin, London strong attack.
1899. 11 JLf4

10...f6 11...^xo4
As time is an important part of the play After this move Black must play very

98
 The Evans Gambit with 5...$Lc5

carefully to keep the balance. 11 ...4tfe7 is M.Vidmar-Poljanec, Ljubljana 1901) 17

seen in the next game. a4 jk.a5 18 ttebl and White is much bet-
12 #34+ #d7 13 #xc4 #f7?!
Black is losing time with this move, so 15 Ag3 i.e6 16 #a4+ Ad7 17 #a3
I have looked a bit at the alternatives: Sc8 18 Sfel g4 19 £>xb6 axb6
a) 13...g5!? 14 Ag3 h5 15 h4 %7 16
&d5 J.g4 17 #a4+ J.d7 18 #a3 fic8 19
Ifel g4 looked unclear, but these kinds
of position usually seem very dangerous
for Black. And here White can start a
winning attack with 20 e5!.
b) 13...£le7 is the natural developing
move, and is what Black probably should
play here. I think unclear is the appropri¬
ate evaluation.
14 &d5

20 £ld2
Here it was interesting to sacrifice a
piece with 20 e5!P. After 20...gxf3 21
exd6+ &f8 22 dxc7+ &g7 23 Se3 (if 23
Wxf3 <S)e7 24 iLd6 £ld5 and Black seems
to be out of the woods) 23...fxg2 24 Sael
Wc4 25 i.d6 b5 26 2g3+! White has a
very strong initiative.
20...jk,e6?!
20...£te7 and ...0-0 was stronger,
though White continues to have compen¬
14...g5 sation.
14...iLe6 leaves White with two ways
to keep up the pressure:
a) 15 Wa4+ £.d7 16 #c2! Sc8 17 a4
jla5 18 Sfbl and White had a strong
initiative in the game M.Chigorin-Dorrer,
correspondence 1884.
b) 15 Ifel JLxdS 16 exd5+ £>e7 17 a4!
and White is much better. Black cannot
really improve on this. If 16...<A’d8 17
Be6! g5 18 J,xd6! with a clear advantage,
or 16...‘4>d7 17 a4 a6 18 a5 l.a7 19 flabl
wins, while after 16...'4>f8 (as in

99
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

21 f4! gxf3 22 £ixf3 ^e7 23 e5?! lxb4 5 c3 lc5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6

Stronger was 23 d5 Jk,g4 24 4lM4 0-0 8 cxd4 lb6 9 <23c3 £»5 10 lg5 f6
25 #a7!? and White is better. 11 Af4^e7 12 h3
23...fxe5 24 dxe5 d5 25 Bfl 4}f5 26
^d4 #g6 27 ^xf5 ±xf5 28 Ah4 c5
29 Hf3 *d7?
Black is losing precious time here and
gives White the chances to recapture the
initiative. After 29...iLe4 30 Sg3 Wfe6
Black should not complain.
30 laf 1 lhf8
30,..Shg8 31 Wb2! Ae6 32 Hg3 Wh5
33 «xb6 Wxe5 34 2xg8 HxgB 35 Bel
Wd6 36 Wxb7+ ifc'eB 37 '^xh? and wins.
31 Hg3 «4i6

Also interesting is 12...<5lxc4 13 ®a4+

c6 14 Wxc4 d5 15 exd5, when we could
imagine lines like:
a) 15...^3xd5 16 2fel+ 'i’f7 17 <?3e4
i.c7 (after 17...I68 18 Se2 4>g8 19 Sael
White retains pressure) 18 Ixc7 Wxc7 19
£leg5+!? fxg5 20 £\xg5+ *f6 21 2e5!
gives White a strong attack, though the
outcome is rather unclear.
b) 15...cxd5 16 #b3 0-0 17 Sfel Jia5
18 Se2 <4>h8 19 Icl Axc3 20 Bxc3 b6 21
32 146! Ie6?! Sc7 *S5g6 22 lh2 with full compensation
Black could offer more resistance with in E.Schiffers-N.Kalinsky, correspon¬
32...J.e4, but after 33 ®a4+ &c7 34 e6 dence 1890, but even stronger was 21
Sxf6 35 Wd7+ ^b8 36 Wd6+ Bel 37 Wa3! 22 i.c7 #d7 23 lxb6 and
Wd8+ Sc8 38 VxfiS l'xf6 39 Sxf6 Se8 White retains the positive aspects of his
40 Bg7 White wins. position, while regaining his pawn.
33 *a7 <S?c7 34 Bb3 *d7 35 lbcb6 13lb3 £ig6?!
Sc6 36 #xb7+ lc7 37 Wa6 1-0 This is not a good square for the
knight, and what is more important, Black
Game 35 cannot find a safe square for his king.
M.Havulinna-J.Nissi Necessary was 13...g5!? 14 Jlg3 g4 15
Correspondence 1992 hxg4 Axg4 16 fibl ^5xb3 17 Bxb3 Wdl
with an unclear game.
1 e4 e5 2 £3f3 <?5c6 3 lc4 lc5 4 b4 14 lg3 #e7 15 Sel <?3xb3?!

100
 The Evans Gambit with 5...k,c5

Here 15...Ae6 16 4fkl5 Wd7 17 <53xb6 This position is winning for White.
axb6 18 Axe6 Wxe6 was better, when 22...#d7 23 d5 c5 24 <Sid4 Hde8 25
Black would at least get a chance to castle. £ie6 b6 26 f3 ®e5 27 a4 *b7 28 a5
16 Wxb3 Ae6 17 <Shd5! #d8 18 Ac7 29 Af2 Se7
5lc7+ Axc7 19 *xe6+ Wei 20 Vb3

30 £ixc5! dxc5 31 Axc5 i>d8

20...0-0-0? Or 31...fld7 32 axb6 axb6 33 Axb6
Making things worse. 20., JLb6 was 4?3g6 34 Wa4 and White wins.
better, though after 21 a4 Aa5 22 2e3 32 d6 Axd6 33 Axd6 Sd7 34 Wa3
Sc8 23 Sbl 2c7 24 e5 White has a clear *e8 35 axb6 axb6 36 «a4 4?f7 37
advantage. #32+ *e8 38 We6+ *d8 39 Ac5!
21 Sabi Ab8 22 Seel 1-0

101
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Summary
The ‘standard position’ covered in this chapter after 5..Jtc5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6 8 cxd4
jtb6 seems to be rather dangerous for Black. White can generate a real initiative with 9
<2ic3!, while also 9 d5 seems to hold some venom. Eventually the theoretical conclusion
might settle with Black being OK, but for the practical player it is more important to
know that Black will always have to play very accurately to survive, while White’s initia¬
tive seems pretty natural. Not surprisingly Black scores a record low 37% with this line,
compared to the more average 44% with 5...jLa5 and 45% with 5...Jte7.

1 e4 e5 2 4&f3 <Sc6 3 &c4 !c5 4 b4 ±xb4 5 c3 i.c5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6 8

cxd4 Ab6 (D) 9 £ic3
9 d5 £ia5
10 e5 - Game 32
10 i.b2 Q)el 11 Ad3 0-0 12 £k:3 *hgS 13 £>e2 c5 (D)
14 Wd2 - Game 30
14 lei - Game 31
9...&a5
9... J.g4 - Game 33
10 J.g5 f6 11 &f4 (D)
11 ...4lxc4 - Game 34
\\...the! - Game 35

H 4H hmmrMm IlliMIl
lit 111 mxm ■±ii± |tl ■ Ill
mm ■ ■ if H 840 rtirl lfl
4 if£
k
11 6 H M jf| ^ - •frmf §§§ 'm
§§ §§§ § .'Tj j§ 1 B 10 §§ ij
A '■ BA

8...kb6 13...C5 11 kf4

102
 rani
CHAPTER EIGHT ] mmmmtl
' 141.' .
m ■ it
The Evans Gambit:
Introducing 5...±a5

1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 £>c6 3 £.c4 ±c5 4 b4

ixb4 5 c3 J,a5
The retreat with 5.. Jta5 is perhaps the
most natural answer to the Evans Gam¬
bit. The bishop remains on the el-a5 di¬
agonal, pinning the c3 and d2 pawns for
the moment and, more importandy, is not
in any kind of trouble on a5. On the mi¬
nus side White will be able to put pres¬
sure on the black position with jLa3 later
on. Black is clearly planning to meet this
with ...d7-d6. Black will establish a strong
point on e5 and try to keep the centre 15 Hxd8+? #xd8 16 £ixf7 Wh4? 17
closed for as long as is reasonably possi¬ #b5+ c6 18 #xe5+ 4>d7 19 #e6+
ble. &c7 20 ±d6 mate.
The retreat 5...JLa5 was apparendy first Instead the alternative 15 Wb5+ would
played in a not very correct correspon¬ have won very quickly for White, while
dence game back in 1826 between Evans after the much better defence 16,..^Hffr6!
and McDonnell. This entertaining game Black would have survived and been in
resulted in a win for White after the fol¬ the game.
lowing: In this chapter we shall look at 5...Jta5
I e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 J.c4 ±c5 4 b4 lines where White refrains from 6 d4,
J.xb4 5 c3 ,4.a5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 ±g4 8 which is the subject of Chapter 9. Gener¬
Wb3 Wd7 9 <£g5 £id8 10 dxe5 dxe5 ally this means 6 0-0 which is covered in
II J.a3 4ih6 12 f3 J.b6+ 13 4>h1 Games 37-41), or 6 Wb3!? as in the first
J.h5 14 Hdl Wc8 game below.

103
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

the position is really not easy to assess.

Game 36 c2) 8 <23xe5 <23xc5 9 dxc5 d6! (Black
B.Jobava-L.Aronian needs to develop) 10 a4! (after 10 0-0?!
European Championship, Antalya 2004 dxe5 11 l.a3 Wf6 12 <23d2 Ad7 the white
attack is clearly not so dangerous) 10...a6
1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 ®c6 3 ±,c4 ±c5 4 b4 11 a5 Ac5 12 0-0 dxe5 13 Sdl Ad6
J,xb4 5 c3 ±a5 6 «b3 (13...<S3f6 would be met by 14 Axf7+!
A sideline, but an interesting one. The 15 Ac4 <5lxe4 16 fla2 with a strong
main lines here are 6 0-0 and 6 d4. initiative) 14 Aa3 and White has suffi¬
6...*e7 7 d4 cient compensation for the pawn.

7.. .53f6 8 dxe57!

Black has tried a few other moves here: This is heading for a position where
a) 7,..exd4 transposes to 6 d4 exd4 7 White has won the pawn back, but his
®b3!? We7 (see the notes to Game 42). game lost its momentum. A preferable
b) 7...$3xd4 8 £3xd4 exd4 9 0-0 <23f6 alternative was 8 Jta3!? d6 9 d5 <23d4 10
(9,..dxc3 10 ±a3 Wf6 11 e5 Wf5 12 £3xc3 <53xd4 (an improvement over 10 Wa4+?
gives White an excellent attack) 10 Jta3 Ad7 11 #xa5 b6 12 #a6 <Slc2+ 13 *dl
c5 was played in J.Kipping-A.Anderssen, 43xal 14 <53bd2 0-0 15 Wcl c6! and Black
Manchester match 1857. Now after 11 was much better, B.Lundgren-T.Wastfelt,
cxd4 *23x64 12 f3 <53d6 13 ilxc5 0-0 14 correspondence 1974) 10...exd4 11 ''Sfa4+
Ad 5 White would have more than <4>d8 12 0-0 Jtb6 13 Ad3 (13 0 is an¬
enough compensation for the pawn. swered with 13...<23h5! intending ...23f4
c) 7... Ab6 leaves us with: and ...Wfg5 with a deadly attack) 13...<23xe4
cl) 8 dxe5!? £\a5 9 H>5 a6 10 Wd5 c6 14 Bel f5 (or 14...<23c5 15 flxe7 <?2xa4 16
11 Wd3 »c5 12 J.b3 Wxf2+ 13 *dl Bxf7 g6 17 jLb5 <23xc3 18 *23xc3 dxc3 19
Wxg2 14 fifl with unclear play, e.g. Jlb4 Ad4 20 Bel with full compensa¬
14.. .#g6 15 Wd6 <23x1x3 16 axb3 ®xe4 17 tion) 15 c4 *h4 16 Wc2 Be8 17 Be2 Be5
Aa3 *d5+ 18 <531x12 #xd6 19 Axd6 18 <5kl2 and White retains the initiative.
%h6 20 <53g5 Ae3 21 <5\le4 b5 22 h4 and 8...<Sixe5 9 <Sjxe5 *xe5 10 1 xf7 + *e7

104
 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5...M,a5

15...J.d7 16 c5

Here we have a position similar to that

of the Traxler in the Two Knights De¬ 16...Axc5
fence (i.e. 3...^f6 4 Jtc5!?). There is Clearer and cleaner was 16...<§3g4! 17
only one small difference: Black is much Wh3 (or 17 g3 Wh5) 17...Sxf2 18 Hxf2
better here. ±xc5 19 Ibl i.xf2+ 20 *hl £c5 and
11 0-0? Black wins.
11 B!? was stronger, but Black can still 17 £>c4 Wh5
grab the initiative with 11 ...d5! (11 ...4flxe4 Also possible was 17...J=xf2+!? 18
12 fxe4 #xe4+ 13 *dl %4+ 14 &c2 Sxf2 'Wfxal 19 flfl b5 20 ‘Sixdb cxd6 21
'te4+ 15 *dl is a draw) 12 ±xd5 ^xd5 i.xa8 We5 22 £<15 $2g4 23 Ixf8 Wh2+
13 ®xd5 ®xd5 14 exd5 <^d6 15 £d2 24 <4*1 ®hl+ 25 4>e2 #xg2+ 26 4>el
He8+ 16 'jfe’dl JLd7 when Black’s play is ^xf8 and wins.
more than enough for the pawn. 18 *g3 #94 19 #d3 c6 20 e5 ®xd5
21 exd6+ 4?d8 22 #b3 b5 23 £ie5
#h4 24 Wc2 Axd6 25 g3 *a4 26
«b2 Wb4 27 £lxc6+ l.xc6 28 #xg7
We4 29 ±g5+ «ie7

11 ...Hf8 12 J.d5 J.b6 13 h3 d6 14

<?3a3 Axh3 15 c4
If 15 gxh3 %3+ 16 *hl *rxh3+ 17
'A’gl <?3g4 wins.

105
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

30 f3 material without repercussions) 9...h6 10

White cannot struggle on for much dxe5 (here 10 4^xf7! <A>xf7 11 Wf3+ A>e6
longer. After 30 #xf8+ A?d7 31 Wxe7+ 12 Jta3 looks more dangerous) 10...hxg5
J,xe7 32 ladl+ A?c7 33 ±f4+ A>b6 34 B 11 Axd5 J.e6 12 ±xc(, Wxdl 13 fixdl
Jtc5+ Black wins. (risky is 13 Axf7+?! <Axf7 14 fixdl Sad8
30...Sxf3 31 ±xe7+ #xe7 0-1 15 fiel She8 16 J.xg5 Sxe5 and Black
retains pressure) 13...fxe6 14 Jtxg5 <?3xe5
Game 37 and the position is more or less equal
M.Chigorin-W.Steinitz according to Unzicker.
Telegraph match 1891 7 d4

1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 £lc6 3 ±c4 ±c5 4 b4

Jtxb4 5 c3 ±a5 6 0-0

7.. .£)h6
a) 7...h6 is met strongly with 8 dxe5!
£ke5 9 £lxe5 *xe5 10 Wb3 #h5 11 e5
6...Wf6?! £le7 12 Eel 4ic6 13 J.a3 with the initia-
Please do not show moves like this to
innocent beginners or those under 16. b) 7...4ige7 8 d5 4id8 9 Wn4 (stronger
Especially not when they have been than 9 Jig5 #d6 10 Wa4 f6 11 jicl Jl.b6
played by our first World Champion. Ac¬ 12 £k3, though here, too, White has
tually this game is solid proof that the more than enough compensation)
motion picture ‘You should not ‘walk’ the 9.. .1,b6 10 ±g5 Wd6 11 4>a3 c6 12 Sadi
queen in the opening’ is based on a true #b8 13 J.xe7 <Axe7 14 d6+ A>f8 15 Wb4
story... f6 16 Jtb3 was M.Chigorin-W.Steinitz,
Instead 6...^3f6 is seen in the next Havana match (game 17) 1889. White is
game, and the main move 6...d6 in much better here and you sincerely won¬
Games 39-41. der why Steinitz chose to repeat the
Also interesting is 6...£)ge7 when play queen move in our main game.
could develop 7 ^3g5 d5 8 exd5 £lxd5 9 8 £g5
d4 (after 9 #h5?! g6 10 ®xg5 11 This is the most natural, though 8 d5!?
JLxd5 0-0 12 d4 '#f5 Black retains the has also been tried: 8...^3e7 9 Wa.4 jfc,b6

106
 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5...!La5

10 £la3 £lg4 11 h3 h5 12 Sbl a6 13 the first Russian grandmaster puts the

Bxb6 cxb6 14 Sell with full compensa¬ first world champion away.
tion for the exchange, J.Timman-
B.Kurajica, Wijk aan Zee 1977.
8...Wd6?!

16...£ie6 17 Acl! £g8

17...f5 is met strongly by 18 Sdl JLc7
19 Aa3! and Black is on a lot of pain.
Things are only getting worse for Slighdy weaker is 19 £lxc8 Bxc8 20
Black. What is the queen supposed to do J.xh6 gxh6 21 Wxb7 Bb8 22 Wa7 %7
here?! Steinitz is playing as if he is invent¬ 23 $Lc4 where White has the advantage,
ing the basic principles of chess as he but such stupid pieces as the c8-bishop
goes along. Well he is... was, I mean- have disappeared, giving Black some
well, never mind... hope.
8.. .#g6 however also leads to trouble: 18 ±a3
9 d5 £)b8 (or 9...£ld8?! 10 ±xd8 &xd8
11 £\xe5 Wxc4 12 Bel Wh4 13 d6 cxd6
14 Wxd6 and White is better, E.Schiffers-
V.Yurevich, St. Petersburg 1892. e.g.
14...±b6 15 Be2 W(6 16 Wd5\ Be8 17
*?M2 jLxf2+ 18 ^hl with a strong attack)
10 JLxh6 Wxh6 11 4tlxe5 0-0 12 d6! £k6
13 *53g4 #g6 14 Bel and White has the
advantage according to Matsukevich.
9 d5 <Sld8 10 #a4 Ab6 11 £a3 c6?!
11.. %6 was better, though after 12
jk.xd8 ifcxclH 13 4)xe5 1Bfxe4 14 Bael
#f4 15 d6! White has a strong attack.
12 Jf.e2 J.c7 13 £ic4 W8 14 d6! If 18...We7 19 Bfdl! (not 19 ±xd6?
ixd6 15 4jb6 Bb8 16 Wxa7 Wxd6 20 Bfdl Wc7 21 £)a8 Bxa8 22
Objectively speaking Black has already ®xa8 £)f6 and unexpectedly Black sur¬
lost the game, but we can still enjoy how vives) 19...c5 20 Sxd6 ®xd6 21 Bdl Wc7

107
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

22 4dd5 and White wins. his centre and remain more flexible.
19 Sadi £if6 20 J=c4 Ac7 21 £id5
Ad6

7.. .£sxe4
a) 7...exd4? is asking for trouble after 8
22 &h4 Aa3 d6 9 e5 <§364 10 exd6 cxd6 (or
In a position like this all road leads to 10.. .£>xd6 11 Iel+ £le7 12 £>g5 0-0 13
Rome. Here 22 £kf6+!? gxf6 23 Axe6 ®h5 Af5 14 ^3xf7 ‘Sixf? 15 Axe7 with a
fxe6 24 i.xc5 Axc5 25 #xb8 *f7 26 clear advantage) 11 ffel d5 12 4lbd2
2d3 also wins. Axc3 (if 12...B 13 ^xd4 £lxd4 14 <^xe4
22.. .®xd5 23 &f5 dxe4 15 lxe4+! fxe4 16 Wh5+ <S?d7 17
Or 23 exd5!? 24 Axc5 b6 25 Wd5+ &cl 18 ®e5+ *c6 19 ®c5+ wins)
'®xb8 Axb8 26 Axf8 &xf8 27 d6 and 13 <£\xe4 Axel, as in D.Rybak-J.Svoboda,
wins. Plzen 1999, then 14 Wxel! Ae6 15 £id6+
23.. .g6 24 £ixd6+ Wxd6 25 Axd5 &d7 16 Ab5 Wb6 17 fibl lhb8 18
*c7 26 Axe6 fxe6 27 Axc5 Ba8 28 £3e5+ ilcl 19 Axc6 bxc6 20 Sxb6 is the
*xa8 Wxc5 29 Wa4 *d8 30 fid2 easiest way to win.
*c7 31 Sbl Sd8 32 Hb5 #c6 33 b) 7...0-0 was successful after 8 Wc2
«b4 d6 34 a4 We8 35 Hb6 '#f8 36 (or if 8 d5 4le7 9 “§lxe5 d6 10 4lf3 £lxe4
#a5 d5 37 exd5 <4b8 38 d6 1-0 11 Wd3 f5 12 £lg5 £lxg5 13 Axg5 h6 14
Ad2 <SAg6 with the advantage) 8...We7 9
Game 38 dxe5 ^3xe5 10 ^3xe5 Wxe5 11 Ad3 <53g4
M .Chigorin-M .Shabelsky 12 g3 Ab6 13 4k3 d5 and Black was bet¬
Correspondence 1884 ter in J.Dufresne-A.Anderssen, Berlin
match 1851. But White can play more
1 e4 e5 2 £tf3 £ic6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4 strongly with 8 ^3xe5! 4lxe5 9 dxe5 *?ixe4
J,xb4 5 c3 JLa5 6 0-0 <2sf6 7 d4 10 Jta3 transposing to the next note.
After only six and a half moves in the 8 dxe5?!
one of the oldest openings, we have This gives White an interesting, but in¬
landed in a slighdy unusual position. correct attack. The critical line runs 8
Normally Black plays 6...d6 to reinforce £ke5! 0-0 (not 8...d5? 9 &)xf7 lfcxt'7 10

108
 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5...M,a5

Wh5+ <S?e7 11 jLxd5 and White wins) 9 <53hf5 Axf5 19 ttxf5 Wxf5 20 <§3xf5 Hc7
A.a3 4?3xe5 (or 9...d6 10 43xc6 bxc6 11 21 fifel and White is much better, or
Wa4 Jlxc3 12 <2)xc3 <53xc3 13 ttxc6 with 14.. .<2)e7? 15 <5)g5 £>xd5 16 #xh7+ <4>f8
compensation) 10 dxe5 d6 11 ®f3 ®h4 17 Wh8+ <4>e7 18 ®xg7 with a crushing
12 J,d5 <2)g5 13 Wd3 Hd8 14 exd6 cxd6 attack in S.Ratzmann-D.Rosner, corre¬
15 ixl <?3e6 16 Wi3 fie8 17 £\a3 and spondence 2001) 15 <53c4 and White has a
White has excellent compensation for the decent initiative.
pawn. 9.. .£>c5
8... 0-0 9...^)xc3? 10 <23x03 Axc3 is worthless
as White has a strong attack after 11 <2)g5
Axal (or ll...<2)xe5 12 ®c2 £lg6 13
Wxc3 and wins) 12 Wh5 h6 13 <23xf7
Ixf7 14 Axf7+ 4>f8 15 Aa3+ d6 16 exd6
cxd6 17 Ab3 and White wins.
But 9...A,xc3 is a serious alternative.
After 10 Axe4 Axal 11 Axh7+ we have:
a) ll...*h8? 12 <23g5 g6 13 #g4 Axe5
14 Wh4 Siggl 15 <23e6+ dxe6 (15...fxe6? 16
tth6+ *f7 17 Axg6+ <&>e7 18 Wh4+ Sf6
19 Aa3+ d6 20 Wh7+ &fg 21 '#h8+ <^e7
22 Wg7+ Sf7 23 ®xf7 mate! was played
9 J.d5 in M.Chigorin-S.Alapin, St. Petersburg
After 9 Wc2?! Black should seize the 1883) 16 Wh6+ *f6 17 Ag5+ <4>f5 18
day with 9...d5! 10 exd6 (if 10 Hdl JLe6 Axd8 Sxd8 19 h4 with a dangerous at¬
11 Axd5 i.xd5 12 c4 <23b4 13 Wb2 Ab6 tack.
14 jte3 A,xe3 15 fxe3 <23g5 and Black is b) ll...*xh7! 12 <23g5+ *g6 (after
better, as after 16 £)el <2)h3+! 17 gxh3 12.. .«xg5 13 Axg5 Axe5 14 Ae3 White
%5+ 18 *£2 Wf5+ 19 *gl Axc4 20 was better in M.Chigorin-V.Manko, cor¬
<53d2 <53d3 Black is completely dominant) respondence 1900 and 1901)
10...<23xd6 11 Idl h6 12 £o3 Wl£6 13
Ad 5 <22e7, Z.Stojanovic-B.Pavlovic, Bor
1983. White is facing a big challenge in
order to prove compensation here.
9 Aa3!P d6 10 Wc2 is the same idea in
a slightly different move order, and now
Black must play more carefully: 10...£3c5
11 <5)bd2 (or 11 i.xc5!P dxc5 12 l,d3
with compensation) ll...Se8 12 Sadi
Ab6 13 exd6 cxd6 14 Ad5 Ae6 (the al¬
ternatives do not work, e.g. 14...1Brf6?! 15
<53e4 Wf5 16 <§3h4 Wg4 17 <§3xd6 fie7 18

109
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

and we have reached a new branching; and Black is winning, E.Schiffers-

bl) 13 #d3+ f5 14 exf6+ ifexfh 15 A.Romashkevich, correspondence 1894.
<$lh7+ <&£7 16 &g5+ *e7 (or 16...4>f6 11 #h5 £ixg5 12 Axg5 We8
with equality) 17 2el+ £3e5 18 £lc3 d6
19 2xe5+ dxe5 20 £>d5+ *d6 21 ^c3+
it?e7 with a draw.
b2) 13 %4!? £lxe5 14 %3 <4>f6 15 £4
J,d4+ 16 i>hl <53c4 17 £>h7+ &e7 18
2el+ ri>d6 19 <Slxf8 c5 (not 19..Mx£8? 20
Bdl St?c6 21 Bxd4 with an extremely
strong attack) 20 4lh7 with unclear play.
10<5lg5

13i,f6! 4be7
If 13...gxf6 14 JLe4 and White wins.
14£sd2 d6
Black is now out of options. If
14...£>xd5? 15 Wg5 @)xf6 16 exf6 g6 17
Wh6 wins, or 14...Axc3 15 <£)e4 Axal 16
Axg7 ^xg7 17 £lf6 and White wins
again.
15 exd6 £)xd5 16 #xd5 gxf6 17
10...^e6? #xa5 cxd6
Black is wasting precious time, merely
to replace one attacking white piece with
another.
Better was 10...#e7! (10...£lxe5 11 f4!
looks dangerous for Black) 11 Wc2 (if 11
tfo5 h6 12 &Q d6 13 exd6 1^6 14
J,e3 i,b6 15 fidl J,e6 16 £la3 fiad8 17
£k4 #e7 and White is fighting for a
draw) ll...g6 12 f4 Ab6 13 ^hl d6 14 £5
(or 14 exd6 cxd6 15 Wd2 Af5 with the
advantage) 14...^3xe5 15 f6 #d8 16 1Brd2
<§3g4 and Black is much better here. One
example is 17 ^3xh7 ifexh? 18 #g5 #e8! Black has an extra pawn, but his posi¬
19 1^4+ 20 ±h6 £\d3 21 £ld2 tion is lost.
£klf2+ 22 tf?gl 4*3h3+ 23 <4>hl £lgf2+ 24 18 fiael #c6 19 c4 Wc5 20 #c3
Bxf2 <£sxf2+ 25 *gl <§3g4+ 26 <4>hl We5 J.f5 21 £ib3 #66 22 £)d4!

110
 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5..Aa5

This is stronger than 22 Ag6 23 4lfd2 White is much better according to

Be? Bae8 24 flfel when White only has a Chigorin.
clear advantage. a2) 8 th3!? (the Waller Attack)
22..Ag6 23 f4 ife8 24 f5 Sxel 25
Ixel Axf5 26 c5! Wxc5 27 #xc5
dxc5 28 £ixf5 h5 29 Ie7 Hd8 30
Sxb7 1-0

Game 39
A. Karpatchev-C. Renner
German BundesUga 2003

1 e4 e5 2 Qf3 &c6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 0-0

d6 5 b4 ±xb4 6 c3 ±a5 7 d4

8...®f6 9 e5 dxe5 10 Sel <Slge7 (better

than 10...±b6P! Il.±g5 WfS 12.^xe5
£lxe5 13.f4 dxc3+ H.'i’hl Ad4 15.£\xc3
with a huge attack in P.Morphy-Kipping,
Birmingham 1858; but 10...jk.d7!P is also
possible, e.g. 11 ±g5 ltf5 12 #xb7 Sb8
13 Bxe5+ ®xe5 14 #xb8+ Slxb8 15
£>xe5 J.e6 or 14 ±xf7+ *f8 15 Wxb8+
<5lxb8 16 5lxe5 Jk.b6 with an unclear end¬
game) 11 Ag5 '#d6 (not ll.-.^gd? 12
Axel lt?xe7 13 4<lxe5 Wb6 14 Jib5+ c6
The move order with 4 0-0 d6 5 b4!P 15 Wxf7+ ifedB 16 £kc6+ and wins,
was rather unusual, but we have trans¬ I.Kolisch-T.Barnes, London 1860) 12
posed to a more normal position now. JLxf7+ 'A'fS is all rather unclear, e.g. 13
In the current game Black plays £>bd2 i.xc3 14 a3!P &(5 15 lacl h6 16
7...JLg4, while 7...jtd7 and 7..~i.b6 are £lc4 I.e6 17 i.xe6 '#xe6 18 Axe7+
seen in Games 40 and 41 respectively. 4?xe7 19 Ie4 '#d5 20 '#xb7 Wxc4 21
From the diagram position we should Wxc7+ sfefiSP? (21...*f8 22 <51x04 exd4 23
also have a look at: Bxc3 Wxc3 24 Wd6+ ifcgS is a draw) 22
a) 7...exd4 and now: <Slxe5 <5lxe5 23 #xe5+ *^?f7 24 fixc3! and
al) 8 cxd4 £>f6P! (8...J,b6! reaches the wins, LOms Fuentes-F.Farran Martos,
standard position of Chapter 7) 9 ^^4 Barcelona 2003.
&d7 10 d5 <5le5 11 #xa5 <5lxc4 12 Wb4 b) 7...<$lf6 8 Wa4!P and now:
£lb6 13 a4 c5 14 Wb3 Wcl (Pavlov & bl) 8...1.d7? 9 d5 £kl4 10 ®xa5 <5lc2
Levitsky-W.Steinitz, Moscow 1896) and 11 Jk,d3 £lxal 12 c4 and White is much
now after 15 a5 <5lc8 16 M,b2 <§lh5 17 better.
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

b2) 8...a6? 9 d5? is naive after 9...b5 10 16 43d6+ 4>f8 17 Aa3 *g8 18 Ibl and
Axb5 axb5 11 1fcb5 0-0 12 ttxc6 jLa6, White was much better in M.Chigorin-
J.Blackburne-H.Block, England (simul) W.Steinitz, Havana match (game 1) 1892.
1878, with a good game for Black, e.g. 13 b2) 10...43f6 11 43a3 43xe4 (11...0-0 led
c4 (if 13 Bel ? 1fb8! 14 a4 I,d3 and the to draws in games 3 and 5 of the match)
white queen has landed herself in a trap) 12 d5 43e7 13 tfa4? (13 JLxg7 is better)
13.. .4W1 14 J,e3 #c8 15 «Ta4 J,b7 16 13..Jtc3! 14 Bab 1 J.xb2 15 Ixb2 43c5
@c2 f5 with a huge advantage. Instead 16 ®d4 0-0 and Black was two pawns up
White should play 9 jtd5! Ji,b6 10 dxe5 in M.Chigorin-W.Steinitz, Havana match
dxe5 11 i.xc6+ bxc6 12 fidl 43d7 13 (game 13) 1892. As you can see Steinitz
ttxc6 and White is much better. gave up upon attacking with the queen
b3) 8...exd4! is the correct reaction, later on in his career, which was probably
when after the continuation 9 43xd4 (or 9 quite wise.
e5 43d7 10 ±g5 43b6!) 9...i.b6 10 J.b5
0-0 11 43xc6 bxc6 12 Axc6 fib8 Black is
at least equal.
7.. .±g4

This puts the most pressure on White

to perform.
a) 8...exd4 9 cxd4 a6 (9...JLxf3 10 gx£3
8 Wa4?! is the next note) 10 Jtd5 Ab6 11 Jcxc6+
The queenside action does not seem to bxc6 12 #xc6+ Ad7 13 '#c3 43e7 14
be too dangerous. 43a3 0-0 15 43c4 d5 16 exd5 43xd5 and
a) 8 @’b3? is also dubious, when after Black achieved equality, M.Chigorin-
8...1xf3! 9 J,xf7+ *f8 10 gxfi Ab6 11 W.Steinitz, Havana match (game 15)
J,xg8 Ixg8 12 d5 43e7 13 #c2 g5 Black 1892. But maybe he wants more?
is much better according to Sokolsky. b) 8...jtxf3 9 gxfi exd4 10 cxd4 a6?!
b) 8 JlbS!? is objectively the best (more reliable is 10...1T6 11 J,b5!? '#xf3
move. After 8...exd4 9 cxd4 1x17 10 Ab2 12 jk,xc6+ bxc6 13 ttxc6+ 14 HKxa8
Black has two important lines to consider: Wg4+ with a draw - Chigorin) 11 Jld5
bl) 10...43ce7?! 11 Axd7+ #xd7 12 43ge7 12 Jlxc6+ 43xc6 13 d5 b5 14 Wa3
43a3 43h6 13 43c4 l.b6 14 a4 c6 15 e5 d5 43b4 (or 14...BY14 15 #xa5 Wf6 16 Wa3

112
 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5...k,a5

b4 17 ld3 to 18 *g2 %3M+ 19 This also looks a bit strange. Black

'2rh3! 4i3g6 20 lb3 and White is better must have had some fantasy about attack¬
according to Chigorin) 15 lxa5 lf6 16 ing f2, but surely the rook move is to
la3 ?hc2 (or 16...) 17 Wd3 £3xal 18 lc2 White’s overall advantage?
0-0 19 Jib 2 lh6 20 JLxal with advan¬ 14 lei J.h5 15 £ia3
tage to White, M.Chigorin-W.Steinitz, 15 exd6 1T6 16 lc2 cxd6 17 e5 l.g6
Havana match (game 17) 1892. 18 exf6 Jtxc2 19 4fla3 J,g6 20 4(2c4 Ac3
9 4tlg5 21 fxg7 ^xg7 22 Af4 is also good for
Incorrect is 9 d5?! b5 10 Jlxb5 axb5 11 White.
lxb5 <?3ge7 12 dxc6 0-0 and Black is just 15...dxe5 16 lxc6 #d3 17 ±e3
better. Sfd8 18 4bc4
9.. .41h6 10 ±d5
10 d5? is even worse this time around.
After 10...b5 11 Ji.xb5 axb5 12 Wxb5
lb8 13 Wxc6+ J.d7 14 Wc4 ±b5 15
Wb3 ilxfl and Black is much better.
10.. .J.b6 11 dxe5

18...f6?
This is just complete capitulation.
White will happily use the e6-square to
create mayhem around the black king.
Necessary was something like 18...1xc3
19 Sacl 'lb4 20 £lxe5 ±xe3 21 Ixe3
la5 22 Wc3 lxc3 23 fiexc3 f6 24 g4
An understandable decision, but there Jk.e8 25 $2e6 fxe5 26 £3xd8 Hxd8 27
was little reason not to recapture immedi¬ Sxc7 *§307 and Black still has some draw¬
ately. After ll...dxe5! 12 Jtxc6+ (Black is ing chances.
also better after 12 h3 Jtd7 13 43f3 Wi6 19 ±xb6 cxb6 20 He3 #c2 21 <§3e6
or 12 £3f3P! 0-0 13 jLxc6 l.xf3 14 gx£3 Bdl +
bxc6) 12...bxc6 13 lxc6+ Jtd7 14 Id 5 Or 21...Idc8 22 1717 £>f7 23 <§3xb6
0-0 15 h3! (if 15 £lf3? J.b5 16 Bel £>g4 and wins.
with a clear advantage) 15...Jtb5 16 Sel 22 Hxdl Ixdl + 23 *h2 ia7
He8 the two bishops give Black an excel¬ After 23...Be8 24 Bg3 is another road
lent game. kill.
12 JLxc6 bxc6 13 h3 ±e2 24 »c8+ *f7 25 £3d8+ 1-0

1 13
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

(Levenfish) and Black can hardly be

Game 40 worse here.
M.Chigorin-S.AIapin 8.. .«e7
Vienna 1898 Instead 8..Mf6 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 fldl h6
11 ±a3 (here 11 J.xf7+P! Wxf7 12 fcf7+
1 e4 e5 2 4&f3 43c6 3 Ac4 ±c5 4 b4 <i?xf7 13 Bxd7+ looks tempting, but after
Axb4 5 c3 Aa5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 J.d7 13.. .43ge7 14 *fl £>c6 15 ld3 Bad8
Black is better) ll...Bd8 12 43bd2 J§Lb6
13 J,d5 43a5 14 Wb4 c5 15 Wb2 4)e7 16
43b3 4)xb3 17 #xb3 0-0 18 ±xb7 4)g6
19 c4 43f4 20 'Sicb Jtg4 21 Jtd5 was un¬
clear in M.Chigorin-W.Steinitz, Havana
match (game 7) 1892 (another Evans
Gambit between the two gentlemen!).
Now Black has to play sharply to stay
alive: 21...i.h3! 22 g3 4)xd5 23 exd5 ±g4
24 &g2 Wf5 25 £>h4 Wd7 26 lei Ah3+
27 ‘i’gl etc.

This might look a little passive, but at

the same time it is quite solid.
8 Wb3
Instead, too much aggression can land
you in trouble...
a) 8 43g5P! £lh6 9 f4 exd4 10 e5 0-0 11
e6 £xe6 12 ±xe6+ &xe6 13 4ke6 ®f6 14
4)xf8 Sxf8 15 Jtb2 i.b6 and Black is
much better.
However, too peaceful play can also
lessen your chances of winning...
b) 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 43bd2 Wf6 10 kd5 9 dxe5
4)ge7 (after 10...ilxc3 ll.fibl Jtxd2 White can also try a queenside offen¬
12.Wxd2 flb8 13.4)g5 43h6 14.Aa3 sive with 9 a4!P Jtb6 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 a5
#f4P! 15.Wxf4 exf4 16.Sfcl White was 43xa5 12 lxa5!P JLxa5 13 jLa3 c5 14
clearly better in A.Lundqvist-S.Kjellander, '#xb7 Sc8 15 ±b5 Bc7 16 Wb8+ Wd8
correspondence 1959) 11 WbS 0-0 12 17 J,xd7+ Bxd7 18 Wxe5+ We7 19 Wxg7
43c4 h6 13 a4 Jtb6 14 Jta3 (or 14 a5 1% 20 %3 J,b6 as in S.Winawer-
M,c5 15 Axc6 43xc6 16 'Brxb7 Sfc8 17 S.Alapin, Warsaw 1890. Now White
Wb5 with equal play) 14...43a5 15 43xa5 should play 21 *§3bd2! with compensation
jtxa5 16 Jtxe7 ^xe7 17 ®xb7 a6 18 for the material investment according to
Ifcl flfb8 19 ®xa8 Bxa8 20 Axa8 Matsukevich.

1 14
 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5...&a5

9 la3?! is too sketchy, however. After all his influence in heaven (or hell) to
9.. .<§3h6 10 dxe5 £ixe5 11 4?3xe5 Wxe5 12 even make a draw.
Wxbl <53g4! Black is better, as 13 f4 ®h5 b) More sensible is 11 Sd5!P Ab6 12
14 h3 Ib6+ 15 it?hi 0-0 allows him a Ab5 We6 13 Ixc6 Wxcb 14 <53x65 Web
crushing attack. 15 Bxd7 Bxd7 16 Wxc6+ fxe6 17 ^3xd7
9.. .dxe5 lOBdl ^xd7 18 *fl <53f6 19 f3 Bc8 20 53d2
Also interesting is 10 l.a3!? W{6 11 l,a5 21 A.b2 with plain equality, St. Pe-
<53bd2 4!3ge7 (or ll...Ab6 12 Ab5 a6 13 tersburg-Paris, telegraph match 1894.
lxc6 Axc6 14 <53c4 and White has fine 11 Aa3 Wf6 12 Axf7+ Wxf7 13
compensation) 12 lb5 0-0 13 £k4 l.b6 «xf7+ <£xf7 14 Ixd7+ <53ge7
14 Axc6 Axc6 15 ^3cxe5 Hfe8 with an 14...&g6? 15 <53bd2 <53f6 mns into 16
unclear game. £lh4+ <&h5 17 Bxg7! 1S?xh4 18 <53f3+
10.. .Ab6 &h5 19 Bg5+ &h6 20 1x1 and White
Here 10...I£d8! can be met in two in¬
teresting ways (at least it has in practice):
a) The first is the most controversial:
11 Aa3 Wf6 12 £lbd2 £>ge7 13 lb5 0-0
14 £lc4 lb6 15 lxc6 ±xc6 16 £)cxe5
lxe4

15 *f1?!
Not 15 £3xe5?! 4ixe5 16 Sxe7+ ii?f6
when 17...£tad8 gives Black strong coun¬
terplay, but 15 l.xe7 ^e6 16 Sd5 <A>xe7
17 £3xe5 nets a pawn.
when we have a position that was the 15.. .Bad8 16 Ixd8 Sxd8 17 £3bd2
starting point of a quarrel between the The position is more or less equal. The
two Russian greats Alapin and Chigorin. white c3-pawn and the black e5-pawn
Alapin believed that Black has a better balance each other out.
game, while Chigorin thought that White 17.. .<53g6
should come out on top. Chigorin was of Not the best position for the knight.
course the better chess player, but on this 18 g3 Aa5 19Sc1 h6?!
occasion Alapin was right. Even in the Better was 19...'«t?f6 20 l4,e2 <53h8 21
strongest line 17 Hxd8 Bxd8 18 'ttfxf7+ fibl g5!? 22 h3 b6 23 !b4 h5 and Black
Wxf7 19 <53xf7 Ce8! White needs to use has nice play.

1 15
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

20 *e2 Hd7 21 <^b3 ±b6 22 Ac5 This was Emanuel Lasker’s idea and is
*f6 23 Hc2 £ih8 24 Sd2 Ixd2+ 25 therefore known as the Lasker Defence.
4ifxd2 g5 26 ^c4 Although in that case we should be able
to label all kinds of minor lines, which do
not deserve names of their own.
8 dxe5
8 a4 is an alternative, though not one
that I can recommend. I am not supersti¬
tious, but Black has won all the games I
have seen from here. For example:
a) 8...£lf6 9 Ab5 a6 10 jtxc6+ bxc6 11
a5 ±a7 12 Wa4 exd4 13 cxd4 J.d7 14 e5
4ld5 15 Aa3 0-0 16 #c4 ®f4 17 *hl
(17 exd6, retaining the pressure, is prefer¬
able according to Matsukevich) 17...ile6
White has a small edge here, but did 18 #cl Zhxg2\ 19 4?xg2 J»d5 20 <&>g3 f5
not make anything of it in the game. 21 £>bd2 f4+ 22 ^g2 #g5+ 23 *hl ®h5
26...Elf7 27 £e3 *e6 28 £sd5 ^d7 24 ®c3 Axd4 and Black won in St.
29 4hf6+ *e6 30 Eid5 <*d7 31 <4-d3 Petersburg-Vienna, telegraph match 1898.
Eicd8 32 f3 l.xc5 33 £>xc5+ *d6 34 b) 8...exd4 9 cxd4 J.g4 10 Jtb5 a6 11
Eib3 c6 35 4ie3 b6 36 £)f5+ <4-e6 37 ^.xc6+ bxc6 12 a5 Jia.7 13 Ae3 the! 14
*e3 <4?f6 V4-% £lc3 0-0 15 Wc2 jtxfi 16 gxfi f5 and
Black was better, M.Chigorin-Em.Lasker,
Game 41 St. Petersburg 1897.
V.Skotorenko-H.Ahman 8...dxe5 9 #b3
Correspondence 1976 Others:
a) 9 JLxf7+? would only work in a
1 e4 e5 2 <£if3 £ic6 3 J.c4 ±c5 4 b4 blitz-game with three minutes or less. It
JLxb4 5 c3 J.a5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 ±b6!? certainly does not work in correspon¬
dence chess: 9...'4’xf7 10 Elxe5+ ^e8! 11
lfh5+ g6 12 £lxg6 ^f6 13 #h6 flg8 14
<§3h4 <£ie5 15 g3 <S3eg4 16 '#44 <S3h5 17
#f3 #xh4 0-1 Kopel-Grocescu, corre¬
spondence 1989.
b) 9 #^8+ leads to an interesting end¬
game after 9...44x48 10 44xe5 M.e6 11
44d2 44e7 and now we have:
a) 12 jk,a3?! f6 13 44d3 £\g6 14 Sabi
&f7 15 l.d5 Se8 16 c4 c6 17 J,xe6+
44xe6 and Black is at least slightly better,
M.Chigorin-H.Pillsbury, London 1899.

116
 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5...Aa5

b) 12 a4! (best) 12...£lg6 (not 12...c6P! This indirect pressure on e5 is often a

13 ±a3 f6 14 &f7 15 £3d4 J,xc4 very important tool for White in the Ev¬
16 4(lxc4 Jtc7 17 Sfdl g6 18 ?lf5! any¬ ans Gambit.
way, and White was better in S.Holzner- After the slower 11 '531x12?! 4(166 12
K.Elison, correspondence 1997) 13 4dxg6 Wfa3 <5107 13 J.c3 '©Tl 6 14 Wxd6 cxd6 15
hxg6 14 jla3 Jtd7 15 Ab3 4ile6 16 Sfcl JLxb6 4(lxb6 16 Jtb3 <23a5 Black just kept
Sh5 17 ±,dl fih4 18 £>c4 Ac5 19 £le5 the pawn in V.Ciocaltea-G.Alexandrescu,
Jlxa3 20 Bxa3 4tlc5 21 Jtc2 JLc6 22 g3 Bucharest 1954.
Hh5 23 4(163 0-0-0 with equality, J.Bohak- 11.. .£lge7 12 lxe7 *xe7 13 J.xc6
S.Holzner, correspondence 1998. *xc6 14 4lxe5 *e6 15 5lc4
9.. .*46 If 15 #a3+ Wd6 and Black will keep
The normal move, though not the only his position together.
one. Alternatively: 15.. .J.C5
a) 9...Wd7!P is an unusual transposition 15...Id8 16 £3bd2 ^f8 17 *hl i.c5
to Game 47 in the next chapter. transposes to the game, while after 16
b) 9..Mc7 is also possible, e.g. 10 ^.a3 Wa3+ ‘i’eS 17 53xb6 cxb6 the position is
*f6 11 <53bd2 (after 11 £)g5P! £lh6 12 h4 equal according to Yakov Estrin.
43a5 13 *a4+ 14 J,b5 0-0-0 and 16 £lbd2 fld8 17 *h1 *f8 18 f4
Black was more-or-less winning in *e8 19£sf3 b6
D.Kilgour-S.Mannion, Scottish Champi¬ Or 19...a6 20 lael b5 21 £3ce5 ±e6
onship 1985, or if 11 &A5 £)a5 12 Wb4 22 ®c2 Ad6 with an unclear position.
<?3h6 13 4(lbd2 c6 and White’s initiative is 20 f5 h6 21 fffel a5 22 *c2 J.a6 23
gone) 11...4lge7 12 Jk.d5 jtg4 (or <2lce5
12.. .41a5 immediately) 13 c4 40a5 14 Wc3
&x£3 15 <23x63 c6 16 c5 ±cl 17 &b3 0-0
and Black was just a pawn up, J.Galiana
Salom-R.Calvo Minguez, Palma de Mal¬
lorca 1991.
10 Ag5 *g6 11 Ad5

The most important thing in this posi¬

tion is to keep control of the sixth rank.
Therefore 23...Hd6! 24 Uadi Sad8 was
correct, with an unclear game.
24 £>g4 Af8 25 *42 Wd7?!

117
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

25...h5? would be even worse after 26 31 £ixf7?

'#h4! hxg4 27 £lg5 &c5 28 e5 khl 29 f6 A real ‘showing off move, which is
and White wins, but with 25...c5 26 ®g3 quite empty too. In our age the use of
ife’hB 27 e5 B,d3 Black still has chances of computers excludes this kind of mistake
creating counterplay. from correspondence games. Instead
26 Wg3 *h7 simply 31 £>f3 <S?h7 32 e5 gives White
If 26...*h8 27 f6 c5 28 ®h4 and White everything.
is much better. 31.. .4>xf7
27 f6 ±c8 28 h3! c5 29 #h4 #c7 30 The point was 31...Axg4 32 *?ixd8
£ig5+ Jtd7 33 e5 fixd8 34 e6 and White wins.
White is also on top after 30 e5 Jbtg4 32 fxg7 &xg4??
31 Wxg4. This is very questionable. Here
30...i?g6 32.. .jLxg7 33 £lxh6+ jtxh6 34 Wxh6 mat-
look dangerous, but what about the main
game?! In fact, after 34...‘4’g8 35 Wg5+ (if
35 Se3? Wg7 36 Wxb6 fid2 and Black is
better) 35...<&h7 36 #h5+ White only has
a draw.
Whereas now White just wins.
33 gxf8«+ Sxf8 34 1»xg4 We5 35
Sabi Sab8 36 Sf1+ &e7 37 Sfdl
We6 38 Wg3 1-0

1 18
 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5...k.a5

Summary
The games presented in this chapter indicate that Black has several sound ways of
meeting 6 0-0, one of them being the “Lasker Defence’ with 6...d6 7 d4 JsLb6.1 believe
that the main reason for this is that the advantages for White of having cashed are
slighdy more long term than those of an immediate attack on the black centre with 6 d4
as in the next chapter). Therefore I do not feel that the lines with 6 0-0 are truly dan¬
gerous for Black.

1 e4 e5 2 £)f3 £ic6 3 l.c4 !,c5 4 b4 ±xb4 5 c3 ±a5 6 0-0 (D)

6 Wb3 (D)-Game 36
6 d4 - Chapter 9
6...d6
6.. MiG - Game 37
6.. .4.f6 — Game 38
7 d4
7.. .exd4 8 cxd4 JLb6 - Chapter 7
7.. JLg4 - Game 39
1.. .kdT -Game 40
7.. .±b6 (D)-Game 41

E ¥1
iftfp!
mm mm
-d it 11 it Up §§
g§ 111 iK^R Itml IPlSlI m m §114411
tM H HMJ Mi 'm±m.
mmmnrn. mm m un
6 0-0 6^ib3 7... k.b6
 CHAPTER NINE | IliMMMMI
|±±±± tit
^§p 9. §P
* ,i
The Evans Gambit:
The Main Line with 5... - a5

In this chapter we shall examine the posi¬ tive as White plays more strongly with 7
tions arising after 1 e4 e5 2 4if3 4bc6 3 dxe5, and then:
Ac4 Ac5 4 b4 Axb4 5 c3 Aa5 6 d4
This is Howard Staunton’s idea, which
has the advantage that White can avoid
Lasker’s Defence (as seen in Chapter 8)
by answering 6...d6 with something other
than 7 0-0. Basically White is putting time
over material, which is of course a risky
strategy. But as they say... he who risks
nothing gains nothing.

Game 42
A.Anderssen-J.Dufresne
'Berlin 1852 al) 7...h6?! 8 Wd5 Wei 9 ±&5 We6 10
'BkB 4tlxe5 11 4tke5 ®xc5 12 f4 ®i5 13
This is one of the most famous games &d2 d6 14 Jtb5+ Adi 15 ±xd7+ &xd7
in chess history. It is known as the Ever¬ 16 e5 Ie8 17 £\f3 %4 18 g3 ^c8 19
green Game. 0-0-0 and White had a strong initiative in
1 e4 e5 2 £tf3 ^c6 3 ic4 Ac5 4 b4 S.Tartakower-O.Chajes, Carlsbad 1923.
Jlxb4 5 c3 J.a5 6 d4 exd4 a2) 7...£\ge7 8 J,f4 0-0 9 0-0 4ig6 10
The main alternative 6...d6 is seen in Ag3 Wei 11 Wd5 with a bind, e.g.
Games 46-48. Black has also tried: ll...Be8 12 4ribd2 lVxe5 13 4tlxe5 *?3xe5
a) 6....1 b6, with the idea of 7 0-0 d6 14 Axe5 Wxe5 15 Wxf7+ <i>h8 16 <?3f3
and Black welcomes himself to the Wei 17 %5 g6 18 Wf4 Bf8 19 Wh4 c6
lounge of the Lasker Defence, is ineffec¬ 20 St?hl 1x18 21 f4 h5 22 lael ^>g7 23

120
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...Aa5

'#£2 ±c7 24 *d4+ 1-0 W.Muir- <53h6, H.Bird-M.Chigorin, Hastings 1895,

R.Peeples, correspondence 1983. when 13 jLa3! would give White good
b) 6...*e7?! does not seem to work ei¬ compensation for the pawn) 11 ®a4
ther. After 7 0-0 ±b6 8 ±a3 *f6 (or 23xc4 12 ®xc4 €3e7 13 J,a3 We6 14 d5
8...d6 9 J.b5 l.d7 10 J.xc6 J.xc6 11 *xd5 (if 14...<§3xd5 15 <§3g5! is strong) 15
43xe5 ±b5 12 lei *e6 13 <?3f3 0-0-0 14 ^2 <§3g6 16 <§3c3 <?3f4 17 *b2 *d3 18
±b2 a5 15 £3bd2 Wd7 16 c4 and White flael *g6 19 <?3h4 %4 20 g3 £3d3 21
was much better in E.Sveshnikov- Wc2 <?3xel 22 Axel &d8 23 <2ld5 Ie8,
A.Sofieva, Cappelle la Grande 1995) 9 N.Short-J.Piket, Zurich 2001, and now
dxe5 £ixe5 10 <53xe5 *xe5 11 *b3 <53h6 after 24 jtc5! White would have main¬
12 23d2 £.c5 13 43f3 #e7 14 Acl 0-0, tained a dangerous initiative according to
V.Ragozin-G.Levenfish, USSR Champi¬ Lukacs.
onship 1949, and now 15 J,xh6 gxh6 16 b) 7...*e7 (the main line, but not nec¬
e5 d6 17 Sael Ag4 18 exd6 *xd6 19 essarily stronger) 8 0-0 jk,b6 9 cxd4 and
53e5 Ah5 20 *xb7 with the advantage. then:
c) 6...b5!? is a strange counter-gambit.
After 7 Axb5 <2)xd4 8 <53xd4 exd4 9
*xd4 *f6 (or 9...<23f6 10 J.a3) 10 e5
White is better according to Matsukevitch
- and he really is!
7 0-0
7 *b3!P is an interesting alternative,
and then:

bl) 9...<53a5 10 *a4 <?3xc4 11 *xc4 d6

12 a4 c6 13 <S3c3 Wd8 (or 13...<23f6 14 a5
Jtc7 15 d5 with compensation) 14 a5
±xa5 15 ±g5 f6 16 ±,d2 33e7 17 Sfel
b5 18 *1)3 ±b6 19 e5! d5 20 exf6 gxf6
21 43xb5 0-0 (not 21...axb5? when 22
Jtb4 wins) 22 Jtb4 <2315? (unnecessary;
22...Sf7 23 23d6 Hg7 would have been
a) 7...*f6!P 8 0-0 J,b6 (8...d3 would be unclear) 23 .fi.xfS *xf8 24 23c3 and
the Evergreen Game again, 8...dxc3 is White was clearly much better in
Game 43, while 8...d6 transposes to the E.Sutovsky-S.Smagin, Essen 2001.
Waller Attack in the notes to Game 39) 9 b2) 9...43xd4 10 £3xd4 l,xd4 11 <?3c3
e5 *g6 10 cxd4 <53aS (improving on (after 11 31,1)2?! d6 12 <53c3 <53 f6 13 Badl
10...33xd4P! 11 <53x04 J„xd4 12 <53c3 Jtxc3 14 *xc3 *e5! and Black has no

121
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

problems) 11...23f6 12 4?3b5! d5 (if was also strong in L.Prins-A.Fuderer,

12.. Jte5 13 ±a3 gives White good at¬ Rogaska Slatina 1948. But 8 <S)g5?! *21 h6 9
tacking chances, e.g. 13...d6 14 Bad c6 e5 2dxe5! 10 Bel (as in A.Anderssen-
15 f4! or 13...c5 14 lacl a6 15 £xc5 d6 C.Mayet, Berlin match 1851) is shown to
16 JLxd6! J.xd6 17 £lxd6+ Wxd6 17 e5 be too hasty after 10...d6! 11 f4 2dhg4 12
and White wins — Lukacs) 13 exd5 jcxa 1 2lh3 0-0 13 fxe5 2dxe5 and Black is at
14 J,a3 We5 15 f4 Ad4+ 16 &hl We3 17 least slightly better here.
4£)xd4! Wxb3 18 flel-f &d8 19 Ae7+ 8..Mf6
<&d7 20 4)xb3 (White has excellent com¬
pensation even without the queens on)
20.. .c6 21 d6 b6 22 Axf7 c5? (22..&d5
was necessary) 23 23d2 it?c6 24 £)c4 Jif5
25 <53e5+ <4’b7 26 a4? (overlooking 26
Be3! intending Bg3 and Bxg7 when
Black has hardly any defence) 26...h5 27
i.xf6 gxf6 28 i.d5+ &a6 29 £c4+ &b7
30 jk.d5+ ^a6 with a draw by perpetual
check, N.Short-P.H.Nielsen, Skanderborg
2003.

&g5 Wg6 11 i.xe7 &xe7 12 e5 *f8?!

(better is 12...Se8 with an unclear posi¬
tion) 13 2)bd2 &b6 14 £le4 &d8? 15
Wa3+ &e8 16 £lf6+ gxf6 17 exf6+ 1-0
A.Anderssen-S.Rosenthal, Vienna 1873.
Black could have played more strongly
with 14...d5, but after 15 Jk,xd5 JLg4 16
4t)eg5 White still enjoys a wonderful at¬
tack.
9...%6 10 Bel
7...dxc3? 8 Wb3 Wf6 9 e5 %6 10 This is better then 10 2dbd2?! 2dgc7 11
lS)xc3 23ge7 11 JLa3! has been tried nu¬ Bel 0-0 12 £)e4 d5 13 exd6 cxd6 14
merous times and, according to Garry Axd3 d5 15 £>c5 Wh5 16 &g5 4lg6 17
Kasparov, Black is in trouble (see the Ad2 ±b6 18 Wb5 ±g4 19 2dg5 h6 20 h3
next game). The more prudent 7...4*3ge7 is hxg5 21 hxg4 #xg4 22 ±e2 Wf5 23 -&d3
considered in Games 44 and 45 below. Wfb and Black had a big advantage in
8 fb3 S.Conquest-M.Nardso Dublan, Pam¬
White should build up his attack. 8 plona 2001. Now why would anybody try
Bel Jib6 9 e5 h6 10 2dbd2 £3ge7 11 £le4 to improve on one of the greatest games

122
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...&a5

ever? Well, if you did not look, would you 19 Ae4! was Emanuel Lasker’s rec¬
remember the exact moves of this game? ommendation, after which the position is
10.. .<Sige7 rather unclear. Again Anderssen seems to
After 10...jLb6 White responds 11 be playing towards his combination, and
®dl! *53h6 12 Jlxd3 ®h5 13 h3 with an Black helpfully takes whatever is on offer.
initiative according to Kasparov. Some people do not know that a lot of
11 Aa3 b5? these famous old games were friendly
The extra move does little good for games, played between the rounds of a
Black - in the coming play the white tournament, and that the defence was
queen seems better placed at a4 anyway. therefore less proactive, more willing to
Instead, after 11...0-0 12 Wd\ White see whatever the sacrificing player was up
would also have a strong initiative, but to on the board, than in advance in the
11.. .d5! is interesting; 12 exd6 cxd6 13 head.
Sdl iLg4 14 i.xd3 Wf£6 15 ±e4 with an 19...®xf3?
unclear game ahead. Better was 19...Sg4! (Lipke) 20 Se4!?
12#xb5 2b8 13 #a4 i.b6 2xe4 21 ®xe4 d6 22 fiel Wg6 and Black
should hold the position according to
Kasparov.
Now White plays his famous combina¬
tion:

14 *53bd2 J.b7 15 £3e4 #f5 16 J.xd3

®h5 17 <53f6+!??
The beginning of one of the most
beautiful combinations in chess history.
Nevertheless, it is also entering com¬ 20 2xe7+! £>xe7
pletely unnecessary complications. White If 20...&d8 21 2xd7+! £>c8 22 2d8+
could do much better with simple play: 17 &xd8 (if 22...£>xd8 23 Wd7+! leads to
£3g3 fh6 18 Acl! We6 19 &c4 £>d5 20 mate as in the game) 23 Jk,e2+ *§3d4 24
^3g5 *S)xc3 (or 20...Wg4 21 Se4 and ±xf3 ±xf3 25 g3 Axdl 26 Wxdl and
wins) 21 Wb3 Wc7 22 £\f5 *?3d4 23 White has a winning endgame.
£3xg7+ *f8 24 Wxc3 <i>xg7 25 %3 &f8 21 ®xd7+!! <S?xd7 22 .if 5+ 4?e8
26 *53x17 and White wins easily. Or 22...<4>c6 23 &d7 mate.
17...gxf6 18 exf6 Sg8 19 Hadl!? 23 J,d7+ *f8

123
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

23...<4>d8 24 J.xe7 mate. 16 <$3xe6 <Skh4 17 £lxg7+ *d8 18 4Gl5

24 Axe7 mate 4Lg6 19 Sad I (Honsor-Takacs) and
White maintains the pressure.
b) 10...b5 11 £lxb5 2b8 12 #e3 <S3ge7
13 ^2 Wh5 14 J.a3 with a strong attack
in I.Kolisch-A.Anderssen, London 1861.
c) 10...£>h6 11 £sd5 0-0 12 J.d3 We6
13 <§3g5 #xe5 14 J.f4 #e8 15 £)xh7 and
White was much better in F.Lee-
J.Blackbume, London 1906.
d) 10...J.xc3?! makes things even
worse. After 11 Wxc3 we could look at:
dl) ll...b6 12 J,d3 %4 13 e6! and
White is much better.
d2) 11...4&d8 12 Ae3 <§3h6 13 fife 1 b6
14 £ih4 Wg4 15 J,xh6 2g8 16 J.d3 gxh6
17 J.xh7 Sg5 18 fie4 with an attack.
d3) 11...43ge7 12 thgS 4dd8 13 lei h6
14 £3e4 0-0 15 J.a3 2e8 16 ^f6+ gxf6 17
1 e4 e5 2 &f3 &c6 3 ic4 Jc5 4 b4 exf6 <S3dc6 18 fxe7 with a clear advantage.
±xb4 5 c3 i.a5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 11 Jla3!
dxc3?

This is a critical position for under¬

Taking this pawn resembles the sin of standing the Evans Gambit. Black is in
gluttony. serious trouble.
8 #b3 *f6 9 e5 »g6 10 £lxc3 £>ge7 11...0-0 12 Sadi Se8
Black has some other experiences here, After the sharp 12...b5 13 J.d.3 %4
but they are not positive: White has to occupy h3, a great square
a) 10.~J.b6 11 J.a3 £\a5 12 Wa4 4^Sxc4 for the queen, with a pawn. But there are
13 ttxc4 We6 14 ®i4 ?3e7 15 £3g5 4il£5 other ways to make life miserable for

124
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...M,a5

Black: 14 h3 We6 15 Axh7+ *h8 16 If 23...d5 24 lxd5 l,e6 25 Sd7+ <&g8

f6 (or 16...b4 17 Acl £\xd5 18 26 Jtd4 wins.
Ixd5 Zhel 19 Ae4 Ab7 20 £kl4 Axd5 24 Sd5 4>g8 25 Hf5 £>f4 26 #g4 1-0
21 Wg3 Axe4 22 <53xe6 fxe6 23 @h4+
<4>g8 24 ttxe4 and White is better) 17 Game 44
Ae4 b4 18 £)xe7 Wxb3 19 4tlg6+ <3>$ 20 A. Morozevich-M .Adams
axb3 bxa3 21 Ad5+ fif7 22 Axc6 32b 8 23 Wijkaan Zee 2001
e6 dxe6 24 Id8+ <4>h7 25 Ae4 f5 26
<?3fh4 1-0 N.Urusov-A.Romashkevich, 1 e4 e5 2 &f3 <£106 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4
correspondence 1893. ±xb4 5 c3 J.a5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0
13 Ad3 Wh5 14 £>e4 £lxe5 15 £lxe5 ®ge7
*xe5 16 Ab2 #e6 17 Wb5 #b6
If instead 17...Ab6 18 Wh5 h6 19 £lg5
Wxa2 20 Ah7+ &f8 21 Abl '#’c4 22
£3h7+ &g8 23 '®e5! wins, or 17...<Slc6 18
&g5 ®h6 19 Ah7+ 4>f8 20 Ae4 Ab6 21
32fel with a very strong attack.
18 Wh5 4bg6
Or 18...1fxb2 19 43g5 £>g6 20 #xh7+
<*£8 21 Axg6 fxg6 22 Wxg6 ®xa2 23
Id4 and wins.
19 £ig5 h6 20 <S3xf7 4>xf7 21 Ad4
21 1T5+ is less clear after 21...*e7! 22
Axg7 d5. Normally we would expect the knight
to be at f6 in the Evans Gambit, but here
White is threatening e4-e5 and Black
would very much like to casde. So in
comes 7-^ge7!.
8 4bg5
This kind of single horse action seems
a little naive in most positions we have
covered, but here it is actually completely
pmdent. The main point is that 8...0-0 is
now out of the question because of the
double threat to h7 and f7 after 9 1§h5!.
Instead:
21.. .C5 a) 8 Wb3?! is weaker: 8...0-0 9 cxd4
After 21...ffe6 22 Af5 #c6 23 fid3 or ?lg6 10 Jlc3 Ab6. Here White should
21.. .tfc6 22 Wxa5 &g8 23 Ifel White is play 11 Wb5!, when he has some com¬
much better. pensation for the pawn; in some varia¬
22 c xc5 «6 23 Ac4+ He6 tions he is threatening Wb5-h5 and ‘53g5

125
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

with an attack. Compared with something b) 8...4be5!? could be met by 9 *§3xf7!?

like 11 #dl d6 12 %5 Wf6 13 £>c3 £lxf7 10 Ax£7+ *xf7 11 #h5+ <Slg6 12
<Slge7 14 Ad3 g6 where Black is much #d5+ <4>f8 13 #xa5 d3 14 fldl d6 15
better, White should count himself lucky. Sxd3 We7 with equality. However, after
b) 8 cxd4 seems unnatural because of the more dangerous 9 Ab3, we have
the reply 8...d5! 9 exd5 $3xd5, and then: some things to ponder over:
bl) 9...0-0? 10 cxd4 £)5g6 11 #h5 h6
12 £>xf7 1 xf7 13 AxF7+ &xf7 14 #xa5
and White is winning.
b2) 9...f6?! 10 cxd4 fxg5 11 dxe5 *$3c6
(after ll...g6? 12 Axg5 h5 13 Af6 If8 14
Ag7 and White was winning in M.Jaros-
P.Hubner, Sveda nad Sazavou 1999) 12
18rh5+ g6 13 #xg5 #xg5 14 Axg5 with a
clear advantage.
b3) 9...d5! is correct, and if 10 cxd4
<5lg4!? with unclear play.
9 exd5 £ie5 10 Ab3
bl) 10 #b3 Ae6 11 #xb7 £\db4 12 Weak is 10 #xd4?! f6 11 Bel Ab6 12
Ab5 Ad5! 13 <§3e5 Sb8 14 Axc6+ (or 14 We4 Af5 13 #14 #d7 14 %3t6 Axe6 15
“53xc6 Sxb7 15 4?3xd8+ 2xb5 16 £3c3 dxe6 #c6 16 Sxe5 4dg6 17 Ab5 <53xf4 18
%3c2l 17 <S3xb5 <?3xal) 14...^3xc6 15 #a6 Axc6+ bxc6 19 Se4 0-0-0 and Black is
Sb6 16 Wd3 0-0 and Black was better in slighdy better, J.Novosak-J.Sosna, Czech
the encounter K.Arakhamia Grant- Team Championship 1996. White needs
S.Mannion, Grangemouth 2000. to keep some kind of momentum.
b2) 10 Aa3 Ae6 11 Ab5 (now if 11 10...0-0
"®h)3 #d7! is strong, D.Markosian- For the greedy 10...dxc3?! see the next
V.L.Ivanov, Moscow 1995) ll...Ab4 12 game.
Axc6+ bxc6 13 Axb4 £lxb4 14 #a4
#d6 15 *S3c3 0-0 16 &3e4 and the position
is equal according to Levenfish.
8...d5
Instead:
a) 8...0-0? was bad, as you probably
remember, due to 9 #h5 h6 10 4tlxf7
Ixf7 11 Axf7+ <4>h7 (or ll...*f8 12
Ab3) 12 cxd4 and White is just winning,
e.g. 12...Ab6 13 Ab2 £>xd4 14 £3d2 d6
15 £>f3 <53e2+ 16.4?hl £tf4 17 £>g5+
ifehS 18 #xh6 mate, M.Jolowicz-Gltmz,
Hamburg 1971.

126
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...&.a5

After 11 <S3xh7 *xh7 12 0h5+ <4>g8 Anyway, the text move would appear
13 0xe5 White probably has enough to present White with even more prob¬
compensation to draw, but no more than lems.
that, e.g. 13...£lf5 14 ild2 c5 15 dxc6 13 Jla3 h6
bxc6 16 lei Lcl 17 Wc4 0f6 18 Af4
V2-V2 N.Short-M.Adams, Sarajevo 2000.
11 ...4ig4

14 <£se4
If 14 0e2 £ifed5 15 ±xd5 £\xd5 16
i.xf8 0xg5 17 ±c5 $)f4 18 0e8+ &h7
12 0f3 19 064+ Af5 20 0f3 Ad3 Black is much
Maybe with 11 cxd4 White has already better.
lost the initiative? At least you should 14...£ixe4 15 #xe4 fie8 16 Ab2 <2if5
know that 12 Jta3 can be met by 17#f4
12.. .6xd5! 13 Axffi 0xg5 14 ±xd5
0xd5 15 ±n3 &d7 16 <£sd2 Se8, and
with a pawn for the exchange and a fully
mobilised army, Black is doing quite well
in A.Anderssen-S.Mieses, Breslau match
1867.
12.. .£sf6!?
In D.Bronstein-A.Ivanov, Maidstone
1994, play continued 12...0d6 13 ±f4
0f6 14 <S3c3 when White offered a draw
- possibly before his opponent had the
chance to notice 14...^3xh2! and Black is
much better after both 15 4>xh2 JLxc3 16 17...Ab4 18 <Sa3 £d6 19 Wd2 0h4
Sacl ±xd4 and 15 0h5 i.f5. Instead 14 20 g3 0h3 21 £ic4 b5!
£+4! with unclear play was the way to Better than 21...‘5lh4 22 f4 Jtg4 23
continue for White, though I am uncer¬ $3e5 Jtxe5 24 dxe5 43f3+ 25 Sxf3 Jtxf3
tain whether there is any real chance for 26 e6 f6 27 fiel when White would have
an advantage here. strong counterplay.

127
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

22 ®e5?
A bad mistake. After the line 22 <S3xd6
cxd6 23 lacl l.b7 24 Sc7 He7 25 flfcl
White should be able to hold the posi¬
tion.
22.. .1Lb7 23 lael a5! 24 a3 b4! 25
axb4?
The alternative 25 f3 would have of¬
fered more resistance, though Black is still
much better after 25...bxa3 26 Jlc3 Aa6
27 Sf2lab8.
25.. .±xb4 26 J.c3 lxc3 27 #xc3
11 #e2 f6
After ll...h6 12 '#xe5 (not 12 ^e6?
fxe6 13 »xe5 Wd6 14 ®xg7 Sg8 15
Wxh6 exd5 16 Wxd6 cxd6 and Black was
much better in B.Blankenberg-W.Hort,
correspondence 2001) 12...f6 (if 12...hxg5
13 #xg7 fig8 14 '#d4 c2 15 <§3c3 ±f5 16
^.a3 with a clear advantage) 13 Wg3 hxg5
14 Aa3 c2 15 4lc3 White has a dangerous
initiative.
12£ie4
12 jta3!? is also interesting, when we
27...<ah4! 0-1 could imagine:
a) 12...i.g4 13 G AS 14 <§3e4 i.xe4
Game 45 15 Wxe4 Wd7? (15...c2 was a better de¬
D.Bronstein -Comp. Heuristic Alpha fence) 16 f4 <S35g6 17 d6 cxd6 18 jta4 b5
The Hague 1992 19 lfxa8+ *f7 20 WB bxa4 21 £>xc3
Hc8 22 £te4 with a clear advantage to
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 ^c6 3 ±c4 ±c5 4 b4 White in R.Ovetchkin-A.Lastin, Russian
Axb4 5 c3 J.a5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 Championship 2003.
Zhgel 8 ®g5 d5 9 exd5 <53e5 10 J.b3 b) 12...C2!? 13 ^Ad2! J.xd2 14 #xd2
dxc3?! fxg5 15 Sfel £>7g6 16 ±b2 tT6 17
Taking the pawn is the most principled l.xe5 £>xe5 18 Sxe5+ WxeS 19 lei
continuation, but an extremely risky one. WxelT 20 feel+ *d8 21 ±xc2 fle8 22
It might be compared to dancing through Wc3 h6 23 h4 and White has some initia¬
a minefield with your eyes closed. It can tive, though a draw is the most logic re¬
be successful, of course, but only in the¬ sult.
ory'. In practice, you can expect to see 12...£ixd5
fireworks erupt all over your position. After 12...a6 13 fidl jt,g4 14 f3 ±(5 15

128
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...Aa5

43bxc3 Axc3 16 4*3xc3 White has excel¬ dubious falsetto (just imagine a horse
lent play for the pawn. singing!).
13 ila3 c6 Better was 14 f4 Jtg4 (if 14...iLb6+ 15
Another game saw 13...c2 14 lxc2 &hl J,g4 16 lei c2 17 fxe5 cxbll 18
<£>b4 15 le2? ±,g4 16 G ld4+ 17 *hl fixbl with a clear advantage) 15 lei c2
J.d7 18 £>bd2 0-0-0 19 Sadi 10)6 20 16 <S3bd2 lb6+ 17 &hl 4M3 18 £ld6+
<§3c4 4fixc4 21 J.xc4 2he8 and Black was <sfc>d7 19 lg3 and White’s attack is pretty
much better in B.Boschma-C.Van Wier- strong.
ingen, correspondence 1999. 14...*d7 15 f4 £>g6 16 J.xd5! Ib6+
White should have preferred 15 Jlxb4, Not 16...cxd5? 17 lb5+ and White
when we could imagine play continuing wins.
15...J.xb4 16 £)bc3 ld3 17 10)2 c6 18 17 *h1 cxd5
Sadi la6 19 Ifel ±g4

18£>xc3N
and now 20 £}xf6+! gxf6 21 £>e4 White righdv puts time before material;
±xd\ 22 £lxf6+ ^d8 (not 22...*f8? 23 there are limits to how much you can
^3d7+! iS?e8 24 lxe5+ and White wins) hesitate when it comes to sacrificing a
23 Sxdl+ £)d3 24 ld4+ <4>c7 25 lxd3 inactive little pony.
la3 (not 25,..flad8? 26 le5+ ±d6? 27 18...Axc3 19 Sabi *c6
Sxd6 Bxd6 28 le7+ and White wins, or After 19...1a6 20 £>b5 l.a5 21 Hbdl
26...*b6 27 ^3d7+ Ixd7 28 2xd7 with a le6 22 1G £le7 23 J,xe7 &xe7 24
deadly attack) 26 Ag8! lcl+ 27 fldl la3+ *f7 25 £>d6+ &g8 26 f5 le5 27
lg5 28 h4 lf5 29 &d5+!? (29 Axh7 is lxa5 White’s superiority is overwhelm¬
also promising) 29...cxd5 30 lxh8 Sf8 ing.
31 lxh7+ lxh7 32 Jlxh7 and White has 20 Wd3 d4
good winning chances despite the oppo¬ If 20...£te7 21 Ifcl d4 22 £)b5 &d5
site-coloured bishops. 23 4tkd4 and White wins according to
14 4kl6+?! Bronstein.
I am ready to bet here that the knight is 21 £ib5 Hd8 22 £ixc3 Wxc3 23
singing the pop hit ‘No Limit’ in a very lb5+ lc6 24 Wb3

129
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

29.. .a5! 30 flfel Sa6 31 fle7 #c6 32 #d3

#d5 and Black has defended successfully.
Now the hunter and the prey will change
seats.
b2) 25 #b4! is much stronger, e.g.
25.. .a5 26 #a4+ #c6 27 #b3 (not 27
flb5? lfee8 28 fiel+ JLe6 29 Bxb7 Bd6
and White’s attack is gone) 27...#e6 28
#b5+ #c6 with a draw by repetition.
Black cannot sidestep with 28...14+7? as
29 Ifcl+&b8 30 #c5 wins for White.
25 fibcl #e6 26 #c2 Wb6 27 Ac5
24...fih8?? #c6 28 #b3 <S?d8 29 J,xd4 #e4 30
This is a typical mistake for the older #c3 ±e6 31 fife 1 #d5 32 ficdl 4>e8
generation of computers. Straight talk 33 ±xf6 #xd1 34 flxdl gxf6 35
would be to say that their circuits melt #xf6
down from calculating too many varia¬ And White is winning.
tions. The move itself has no real idea (a 35.. .1.f7 36 f5 fig8 37 #d6 £,xa2 38
purely human concept of course) behind fxg6 Sxg6 39 #d7+ *f8 40 Wxh7
it (other than to vacate d8 for the king), fig7 41 Wh8 + Ag8 42 fif1+ Sf7 43
and White wins without any problems. #h6+ &e8 44 fie 1+ fie7 45 #h5 +
Some further comments on this posi¬ 4*8 46 #h6+ 4e8 47 fifl Sf7 48
tion are, however, in order. fidl fih7 49 Wd6 fie7 50 h4 Ae6 51
a) 24...Se8? loses fairly straightfor¬ #e5 1-0
wardly to 25 Sbcl #e6 26 #a4+ &d8 27
#xd4+ i.d7 28 f5 #e5 29 #xd7+H Game 46
‘i’xd? 30 flfdl+ and White wins. N.Short-R.Hiibner
b) 24...#e6! was the only move and Dortmund 1997
should give Black a draw. Now White can
continue: 1 e4 e5 2 $}f3 £ic6 3 ±c4 lc5 4 b4
bl) 25 #a4+ <^c7 26 f5 #d7 27 #04+ J,xb4 5 c3 Jla5 6 d4 d6
■ib8! (stronger than 27...#c6?! 28 #f7+ The Alapin Variation, named after the
Bd7 29 Wg8 <S)e7 30 i.xe7 Bxe7 31 famous Russian master, who published
flbcl h6 32 #d5 a5 33 flfdl Sd7 34 his analysis in the German magazine
#e4 Ha6 35 #f4+ Hd6 36 #g3 Axf5 37 Schachfremd in 1898. Alapin was the foun¬
#xg7+ Jtd7 38 #xh6 with advantage to der of a fair amount of modern chess
White, although Black still has good theory, including the Alapin Opening 1 e4
counterplay) 28 fxg6 hxg6 29 fibcl (or 29 e5 2 ^3e2, which has more-or-less van¬
flfel #c7 30 Wb3 b6 31 Be7 Bd7 32 ished from tournament play (even 2
Bxd7 Jixd? 33 Bel #e5, when the white #h5!? enjoys grandmaster support in
attack is over and Black is clearly better) 2005), while 1 e4 c5 2 c3 is usually un-

130
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...3La5

fairly referred to as the c3-Sicilian, when in Games 47 and 48) 9 Ag5?! (instead 9
again it should carry his name. 0-0 Ab6 transposes to 9...We7 in the
notes to Game 41) 9...f6 10 Jth4 (if 10
Axg8 fxg5 11 Axh7 Wf6 and Black is
clearly better) 10..Jlb6 11 iLxgS £la5 12
Wd5 c6 13 Wd3 Hxg8 and Black was
close to winning already, Leita-
A.Carrettoni, correspondence 1987.
d) 7 JLg5!? is more interesting, and
then:
dl) 7...&f6 8 Wa4 exd4 9 AdS Axc3+
10 £lxc3 dxc3 11 Axf6 gxf6 12 Axc6+
bxc6 13 Wxc6+ Ad7 14 Wxc3 with com¬
pensation for the pawn.
7 th3 d2) 7...Wd7 8 0-0 h6 9 Ah4 £lge7 10
Instead 7 0-0 would transpose to 6 0-0 d5 4lb8 11 Axe7 (4>xe7 with unclear play,
d6 7 d4 in the previous chapter (see e.g. 12 a4 Wg4 13 Wc2 f5 14 Sel and if
Games 39-41). In particular, 7...JLb6 leads 14...fxe4?! 15 43d4!.
to the Lasker Defence (Game 41), which d3) 7...f6 8 Ae3! (not 8 th3?! fxg5! 9
White’s 6 d4 move order was designed to Axg8 Wf6 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 0-0 Ab6 and
avoid. To that end 7 #b3 is the most Black is better) 8...£lge7 9 0-0 and White
usual continuation here, though White has compensation for the pawn.
has tried other moves as well:
a) 7 d5?! <£ke7 8 Wa4+ c6 9 dxc6 bxc6 10
'#’b3 is not too impressive after 10...f6!
(E.Trumpy-H.Grob, correspondence
1841) 11 Af7+ 12 Aa3 d5 13 Axg8
Sxg8 14 0-0 and, according to Matsuke-
vitch. White has no real compensation
for the pawn.
b) 7 #a4?! exd4 8 i§3xd4 &3e7 9 Ag5
fti7! 10 Ab5 (if 10 Axe7 £lxd4 11
#xa5 £k6 12 Wg5 Wxc7 13 Wxgl
Wxe4+ 14 ile2 We 5 with a clear advan¬
tage - Maroczy) 10...a6 11 Axc6 4lxc6 12 7...Wd7
?lf5 f6 13 Ae3 b5 14 Wdl Wf7 15 0-0 Here Black has many ways to make a
Axf5 16 exf5 0-0 and Black is much bet¬ fool of himself:
ter, G.Breyer-R.Reti, Baden 1914. a) 7...Wf6? 8 d5 £k!4 9 4lxd4 exd4 10
c) 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 Wb3 (if 8 Wxd8+ Wa4+ and White wins a piece.
?W18 9 ^3xe5 Jte6 and Black is at least b) 7...tre7P! 8 d5 £>d4 9 £kd4 (9
equal) 8...We7 (8...Wd71? is the main line Ab5+!P 4?d8! is not so clear) 9...exd4 10

131
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

0-0 (if now 10 lra4+ *d8 11 ttxa5 Black L.Ribeiro-C.Leite, Lisbon 1999.
has ll...#xe4+) 10...1,b6 11 Ab2 with a 8...±b6!
strong initiative. The most testing move, planning
c) 7J&H6P! 8 &xh6 gxh6 9 J,xf7+ ..H5 to remove the dangerous light-
*f8 10 dxe5 #e7 11 J.d5 £>xe5 12 squared bishop. The alternative, 8...dxe5,
<§lxe5 #xe5 13 Wfa3 Abb 14 4\12 and is seen in the next two games.
White is better, V.Ragozin-D.Bronstein,
USSR Championship 1945.
d) 7...£kd4P! 8 £lxd4 exd4 9 J.xf7+
^>f8 10 0-0 We7 11 1x4 &f6 12 cxd4
<53xe4 13 Wf3+ 4£lf6 14 Zhc3 with a strong
attack, A.R.Thomas-W.Unzicker, Hast¬
ings 1950/51.
e) 7...exd4?! 8 Jcxf7+ <&e7? (8...*f8!? is
not so easily refuted) 9 e5! dxe5 10 0-0
lg4 11 Bel with a crushing attack,
C.Alexander-F.Yates, Cambridge 1932.

9£ibd2
Other moves seem weaker:
a) 9 Wc2?l (just misplacing the queen)
9.. .dxe5! 10 i.a3 £lge7 11 ^bd2 0-0 12
lb3 ^h8 13 0-0 f6 and Black is better,
V.Ragozin-V.Mikenas, Leningrad 1956.
b) 9 0-0?! 4k5! (9...dxe5 would trans¬
pose to Game 47) 10 ®b4 <53xc4 11
®xc4 dxe5 12 <Slxe5 We6 13 Wa4+ c6
with a slight advantage to Black,
K.Kalashnikov-A.Lunev, St. Petersburg
2000.
Almost always played, since the alter¬ c) 9 exd6P! £la5 10 Wh5 03xc4 11
natives are only dangerous for White: Wxc4 Wxd6 12 Ia3 Jic6 and Black is
a) 8 a4 lb6 9 a5 lsxa5 10 Bxa5 AxaS better again, E.Mnatsakanian-A.Korelov,
11 dxe5 $lh6! and Black is certainly not USSR Championship 1962.
worse. d) 9 lb5!P is playable, but rather dull,
b) 8 0-0 lb6! 9 ±b5 (9 dxe5 trans¬ e.g. 9...a6 10 la4 (or 10 Wa4 Bb8)
poses below) 9...a6 10 la4 (or 10 Jlxc6 10.. .1c5 11 c4 4lge7 12 £lc3 0-0 13 0-0
Wxe6 11 dxe5 Ie6!) 10...1a7 11 £la3 (if dxe5 14 40xe5 Wd6 15 4bxc6 I>xc6 with
11 d5 b5 12 dxc6 Wxc6) ll...Bb8! 12 d5 a level position in J.Brenninkmeijer-
b5 13 l>xb5 axb5 14 lxb5 fixb5 15 M.Kuijf, Groningen 1993.
Wxb5 &\ce7 when Black is better, So, after 9 40bd2 we have the key to posi-

132
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...A,a5

tion in the 8...Ab6 variation. level) 12...axb6 13 0-0 dxe4 14 #xe4 %4

15 #e3 53e7 16 <53d4 0-0 17 h3 %6 18
f4 c5 White is the only one with prob¬
lems, Y.Estrin-V.Palciauskas, correspon¬
dence 1978.
10...Axc4 11 Axc4 ±c5 12 #b3
Ae 7
Or 12...#c6 13 <53g5 <53h6 14 0-0 0-0
15 exd6 cxd6 16 53e3 with an unclear
game.
13 0-0 0-0 14 exd6 cxd6 15 Aa3
#c7 16 Ad4 Axa3 17 Axa3

9.. .Aa5
The only consistent move. Instead
9.. .dxe5 10 Aa3 transposes to Game 48,
while after 9...$3h6?! 10 0-0 0-0 11 exd6
#xd6 12 Ad5 #g6 13 <?3c4 Ah3 14 Ag5
Ad7 15 a4 Bab8 16 Axb6 axb6 17 f4
White was better in E.Sveshnikov-
Y.Meister, Russian Championship 2000.
10#b4
10 #02 is the main alternative:
a) 10...£lh6 11 0-0 0-0 12 h3 (12 exd6!
cxd6 13 h3 was more accurate) 12...Se8 17.. .Ac6?!
13 fldl dxe5 (leading to an interesting Better was 17...a6 18 JSabl #c5 with
drawing variation; if 13...£k6?! 14 Ab5! equality.
a6 15 Jta4 JLa7 16 exd6 cxd6 17 <5lc4 b5 Now White has the chance to create
18 <?3xd6 bxa4 19 <?3xe8 #xe8 20 Axh6 problems for Black by 18 4t3ab5 #b6 19
gxh6 21 #xa4 and White is much better) #d5. Instead he played...
14 <53xe5 Bxe5 15 <53 f3 <53xc4! 16 Hxd7 18 Sfel?! #e7 19 Sabi Ae5 20 c4
J,xd7 17 #d3 A,e6 18 <53xe5 53xe5 19 a6 21 Aac2 J,e6 22 Ae3 b5 23
#g3 53hg4! 20 hxg4 <53xg4 21 Jte3 <53xe3 Ad5?
22 fxe3 fld8 and the fortress cannot be Here 23 <53xe6 fxe6 24 cxb5 axb5 was
breached, I.Kumosov-A.Lastin, Russian necessary, e.g. 25 Sedl fia4 26 £3 <53f7
Championship 2003. with equality.
b) 10...<51x04 11 <53xc4 d5! is the stan¬ 23.. Jbcd5?
dard equaliser; for example, after 12 Black plays to White’s tune. Instead af¬
‘5lxb6 (instead 12 exd5 #xd5 13 #x4+ ter 23...#a7 24 <53f5 jtxf5 25 exf5 bxc4
Jld7 14 <S3xb6 cxb6 and 12 «fi.g5!? h6 13 26 #g3 f6 Black is much better.
Ah4 #g4 14 0-0-0 g5 are pretty much 24 cxd5 Wf6 25 Ac6 Ife8 26 Ibcl

133
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Now it is White who is slightly better. Black cannot go to e5 with his king, as
26...g6 27 h3 h5 28 ^xe5 Sxe5 29 2f2 with the idea of 2f5 mate would be
8c6 We7 30 f3 decisive.

30.. .g5?! 40...<£f7 41 &f2 &f6 42 Be2 fle8 43

Black was apparently running short of <4>e3 g3 44 &f4 la8 45 Hb2 2a5 46
time. Here 30...f5! was better, and after 31 a3 Sxa3 47 Bxb5 Sa2 48 Hb6 Bxg2
Wb4 fxe4 32 fxe4 2e8 33 Wxd6 Wxd6 34 49 Sxd6+ &f7 50 &f3 Sgl 51 Be6
2xd6 ^g7 35 2xa6 2xe4 36 2xe4 2xe4 1-0
Black should be able to save the game
according to Short. Game 47
31 *b4 Sd8 32 Hxa6 f5 33 #a5 S. B. Hansen-H .Stef ansson
fxe4 34 2a7 Hd7 35 Bxd7 #xd7 36 Copenhagen 1994
fxe4 g4 37 hxg4 hxg4 38 #c3?
After the strong 38 2e2 Wei 39 ^(21 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £ic6 3 &c4 ±c5 4 b4
Black is in trouble, e.g. 39...Wg5 (or ±xb4 5 c3 ±a5 6 d4 d6 7 Wb3 Wd7
39.. .fh4+ 40 <4>e3 Wei 41 &d3) 40 &g3 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 0-0
2e8 41 e5! 2xe5 42 'B'xbS 2xe2 43 Wxe2 This move is more popular than 9
WyAS 44 Wxg4+ with good winning Jta3, which we will look at in the next
chances. game.
38.. .#a7+ 39 #e3 #xe3+? 9...iLb6 lOIdl
This is a time trouble mistake for cer¬ The most obvious and best move. The
tain. Black could have taken the pawn: alternatives are not dangerous:
39.. .tfxa2 since if 40 Hfl Wa8 41 Wh6 a) 10 JLb5 regains the pawn, but noth¬
Wa7+ 42 <4>h2 Wg7 defends. ing more. After 10...We6 11 Wxe6+ Jlxc6
40 Bxe3 12 Axc6+ bxc6 13 £>xe5 <5ie7 14 JLa3 c5
The rook endgame is winning for 15 ^3d2 f6 16 %L)ef3 0-0-0 Black’s game
White. The black rook is not very well was preferable in R.Duhrssen-P.Keres,
placed, so White has time to bring his correspondence 1935.
king to the best square f4. Note that b) 10 JLa3 <§3a5 11 £lxe5!? £)xb3 12

134
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...Aa5

axb3 We6 (not 12...»d8?? 13 Axf7 mate) the a3-f8 diagonal. Other moves have
13 Axe6 Axc6 14 <£k!2 a6 is just equal been problematic for Black:
according to Euwe. a) ll...£k5?! 12 lxf7+ Wxf7??
10...#67 (12...*f8 13 Wa2 was forced) 13 Sd8+
&e7 14 lg5+ <23f6 15 lrxf7+ -4>xf7 16
Sxh8 won the exchange in M.Zulfugarli-
S.Dovliatov, Minsk 2000.
b) ll...£fti6 12 a5 lxa5 13 Ia3 Wf6
14 lb5 ld7 15 c4 and Wdiite has more
than enough compensation for the pawns
according to Keres, mainly because of the
poor position of the bishop on a5.
c) ll...a5 seems natural, but gives
White the tempo back, e.g. 12 ld5 lg4
13 2d3 0-0-0 14 Aa3 Wf6 15 &bd2
4Dge7 16 c4 £)xd5 17 cxd5 <S)d4 18 Wc4
11 a4?! £le2+ 19 *fl &f4 20 Sb3 &b8
Black now has time to bring the dark- (G.Tiedt-A.Sickfeld, correspondence
squared bishop back into the game. 1990) and now after 21 Sabi White has a
Therefore some alternatives seem to be terrific attack.
required: d) ll...a6 12 Aa3 Wf6 13 a5 (or 13
a) 11 Sd5?! is no help after ll..JLe6! 12 jLd5!? <S3ge7 14 <Slbd2 intending &)c4,
®a4 (if 12 ±b5?! a6 13 Aa3 Wf6 and keeping up the pressure) 13...1a7 14
White’s attack has gone; if 14 jta4 <2lge7 Ad5 £ige7 15 Sa2 0-0 16 lxc6 bxc6 17
15 i.xe7 Wxc7 16 Wc2 f6 17 ±xc6+ bxc6 Bad2 with good compensation for the
18 Sell 0-0 and Black is clearly better) pawn according to Matsukevitch.
12.. Jk.d7 13 Wb3 <?3a5 (13...i.e6 repeats) 12a5a6
14 Sxa5 ±xa5 15 tfxb7 Sd8 16 Aa3 Vf6 If 12...£lf6 13 a6! bxa6 14 ld5 with
17 ’®d5 Ab6 18 '®fxe5+ Wxe5 19 4?3xe5 compensation.
£lh6 and only Black has chances to win,
e.g. 20&3d2 jLa4 21 Jtd5 f6 22 £lc6 Axe6
23 l.xc6+ *f7 24 1x15+ <&g6 25 £ic4
“5lg4 and Black is better.
b) 11 la3! fT6 12 J.b5 seems to be
strongest here, e.g. 12...<53ge7 13 ^3bd2
Ae6 14 <S)c4 0-0 15 lxc6 bxc6 16 ^4
lxc4 17 #xc4 Hfe8 18 Axe7 Sxe7 19
Sd3 and White has an edge, despite the
pawn minus.
11.. .J.C5!
The bishop cleverly returns to fight for

135
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

13 Ad5 -ad8 30 <?3g5 We8 31 ±xf4 exf4 32

If 13 .fe,a3 ±xa3 14 £3xa3 43f6 15 ±,d5 e5?!
0-0 16 ±,xc6 (or 16 £k4 J,d7 17 #xb7 Better was 32 Wc2 h6 33 Wh5 <4>g8 34
Hfb8 18 #xc7 £3e8 19 J,xf7+ Vxf7 20 4?3f3 We6 35 <53(14 and White has serious
ffxd7 ®xc4) 16...bxc6 17 *c4 (or 17 drawing chances.
<53c4 l,e6) 17...Ag4 18 Bd3 £ld7 and 32.. .h6 33<53f3
Black’s position is preferable. Also after 33 43e4 Wc6 34 <53xc5 Wxc5
13.. .41f6 14 Ag5?! 35 ®e4 Bfe8 36 <5ixf4 <53xe5 Black is
Better was the unattractive 14 J.a3 0-0 close to winning.
15 Jtxc6 bxc6 16 #c4 Jkxa3 17 4!3xa3 33.. .Wc6
transposing to the previous note. Now
White is quickly getting into deep trouble.
14.. .0-0 15 4tibd2?!
Or 15 Jtxc6 bxc6 16 <53bd2 h6 and
Black is at least slighdy better. Now Black
retains the knight and brings it to the very
useful f4-square.
15.. .^d8! 16 Wa2 ®e6 17 ±h4 &f4
18 Ac4 £>g6 19Ag3 £)h5

34 #e4?
34 Wa2 was a better try, though after
36.. .We6 35 2d2 2d7 36 £3b4 2xd2 37
Wxd2 Bc8 Black should still win at the
end of ends.
34.. .<5le7
Winning a piece.
35 £>f6 gxf6 36 *xf4 <§3g8 37 £ih4
flxdl 38 Sxdl #e6 39 exf6 Sd8 40
White’s initiative is dead and buried, Sal #xf6 0-1
while the extra black pawn is still alive
and kicking. Game 48
20 Sabi *h8 21 Sel £)hf4 22 £if1 A.Grosar-D.Gross
»6 23 <§3e3 b5 24 axb6 cxb6 25 Buekfuerdo 1995
Wc2 b5 26 J,a2 J,d7?!
26..Axe3 27 Ixe3 JLc6 28 ±xc6 1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 ®c6 3 Ac4 A,c5 4 b4
Wxeti was simpler, when Black is just Axb4 5 c3 ±a5 6 d4 d6 7 *b3 Wd7
technically winning. 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 Aa3!?
27 Sbdl Ae6 28 Axe6 »xe6 29 £>d5 An intrusive move.

136
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...k,a5

Af3 with compensation) 14 ‘Sid 13 Aid

15 Axd7 JLxd7 16 e5 Ae7 17 Ad4 Axa3
18 Sxa3 'iicl 19 b4 with excellent
compensation for the pawn in Y.Estrin-
M.Skrovina, correspondence 1960

9.. .JLb6 10 2lbd2 2la5

The alternative 10...“2lh6?! would make
Dr. Tarrasch turn in his grave... at least a
little bit. Now White can consider:
a) 11 Idl?! 2)a5 12 Wb4 c5 13 Wbl
0-0 14 *hxe5 We7 15 2)dB <2lxc4 16 11...C5!?
2)xc4 Jtg4 and Black is better. Black can defend his colours more eas¬
H.Hoeksema-J.Brenninkmeijer, Gronin¬ ily by 11...1^7! 12 '#b5+ (if 12 Wb2 t'ft
gen 1993. or 12 Axe5 Axc4 13 Adxc4 #xb4 14
b) 11 0-0! <2la5 12 ®b4 <2lxc4 13 <2lxc4 cxb4 Ae6) 12...Ad7 13 A.xe7 Axb5 14
f6 14 fiadl te6 (not 14...a5?! 15 Wb3 Axb5+ i>xe7 15 “21x65 c6 with equality.
'®c6?! 16 &fxe5! fxe5 17 £>xe5 Ae6 18 12 #b2 Axc4 13 Axc4
c4 and White wins) 15 Sd5 c5 (if
15.. .Ad7 16 23g5! or 15...£lf7 16 Hfdl
and Black’s position looks awful)
16.1^4+ ±d7 17.Sxd7 ®xd7 18.2lxb6
«xa4 19.2lxa4 b6 20.Sdl Id8 21.flxd8+
'i’xdS 22x4 2lf7 23.2lc3 and White was
clearly better, P.Rodriguez-L.Valdes,
Cuba 1990.
c) 11 Ab5!? f6 12 0-0-0!, followed by
13 <2lc4, is also very dangerous for Black.
11 Wb4
An interesting option is 11 2lxe5!?
“2lxb3 12 axb3! (the black queen is not a 13...#06?
hare, she will not mn away) 12..Jhd2+ The beginning of a truly horrible game
(12...2lf6 is possibly better, but not for Black. 13...'#d3? would be even
12.. .1.d8?? 13 Axf7 mate again) 13 i>e2 worse, due to 14 Afxe5 1Brxe4+ 15 A’fl
±h4 (or 13...J.b6 14 Axd7 l.xd7 15 «d5 16 *b3 and Black is in big trouble.

137
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

But after simply 13...f6 14 Sell ®c6 15 -able, but it does not really help at all.
4M6+ *e7 16 0-0 (or 16 c4 ±e6) 23 *b2 h6 24 Bd4 #c6 25 «xc6
16...^h6 17 c4 4if7 18 4ixc8+ Saxc8 19 bxc6 26 Se7
Hd5 Bhd8 White has nothing much to
show for the pawn, L.Christiansen-
H.Gretarsson, Yerevan Olympiad 1996.
14 £sfxe5 <£>f6 15 fb5+ Ad7 16
Gsxd7 'Brxe4+ 17 4?d2

Material is equal, but the position is

just lost for Black.
26.. .£sd5 27 Sd7 *h7
Or 27...£)b6 28 Sc7 c5 29 ^xb6 axb6
30 Sdd7 and White wins - something for
17...'ird5+ those who like to dominate.
17...1ff4+ 18 &c2 #f5+ (if 18...1rxf2+ 28 fixf7 Shf8 29 Ixf8 Bxf8 30 Rd2
19 &b3 &xd7 20 2hel+ just wins) 19 2f7 31 £se5 Hb7+ 32 &c2 Sb6?!
&b3 Wxd7 20 Shel+ 21 i.xc5+ 32...Sc7, followed by ...g7-g5 and mov¬
l.xc5 22 Wxc5+ &g0 23 Sadi is similar ing the king to the centre, might have
to the game, and is much better for offered a faint prayer of a draw.
White, because of his superior mobilisa¬ 33 Bd4 Sa6 34 a4 £ib6 35 4?b3 c5
tion. After 23...Wg4 he would just cash in 36 Hd6
with 24 Wxa7!. Black’s pieces are tragicomical. It’s al¬
18 4?c2 Wxd7 19 Ihe1+ *f8 20 most as if White has played the moves for
±xc5+ J.xc5 21 #xc5+ <4>g8 22 both sides.
ladl #a4+ 36.. .2a5 37 Ic6 h5 38 f4 4>g8 39 g3
Compared with the 17...#f4+ line 4>h7 40 h3 4>g8 41 g4 H4 42 g5 <&>f8
above, Black has this extra check avail 43 c4*e7 44 f 5 1-0

138
 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5...&.a5

Summary
After 5...jka5, 6 d4 is the most dangerous line for Black, but it does not seem to gener¬
ate enough pressure to guarantee White an advantage. Black should be able to hold his
own with both 6...d6 and the slighdy more adventurous 6...exd4 7 0-0 £ige7L
Nevertheless, I believe that there is plenty of room for improvements on both sides,
and that the Evans Gambit will prove a dangerous weapon into the 21st century. Espe¬
cially when the opponents are not 270(H- super-grandmasters, and have not checked
everything with a computer years in advance.
So, although the Spanish gives more promise of a theoretical advantage, the Evans
Gambit gives better chances of actually winning the game. It is the opening for those
players who hate to compromise.

1 e4 e5 2 fcf3 £c6 3 £c4 Ac5 4 b4 ±xb4 5 c3 Aa5 6 d4 exd4

6.. .d6
7 0-0 - Chapter 8
7 Wb3 Wd7 8 dxe5 (D)
8.. JLb6 - Game 46
8.. .dxe5
9 0-0 - Game 47
9 JLa3 - Game 48
7 0-0 (D) £>ge7
7.. .d3 - Game 42
7.. .dxc3 — Game 43
8 £lg5 d5 9 exd5 £le5 10 Ab3 (D)
10.. .0.0 - Game 44
10.. .dxc3 - Game 45

8 dxe5 7 0-0 10 Ab3

139
 *mMwmmi
CHAPTER TEN | mi in
:.'
m, ■
The Hungarian Defence mm mm
mrn&m mn\
and Other Sidelines

1 e4 e5 2 Qf3 £ic6 3 i,c4 This line is nothing but a stupid trap...

As this is my second book on 1 e4 e5 2 which has, however, been successful in
^f3 3 JLc4, I cannot honestly pre¬ many junior games.
tend that no other moves than 3.. Jltc5 4 £>xd4!
and 3...<2^6 exist. Hence this hidden The trap consists of 4 ‘SixeS??, which
chapter on Black’s various third move loses to 4...Wg5! 5 £lxf7 (5 i.xf7+ &e7 6
alternatives, culminating in the respect¬ 0-0 is the best chance now, though Black
able Hungarian Defence 3...1e7. is still close to winning after 6...Wxe5)
5.. .Wxg2 6 Sfl Wxe4+ 7 Ae2 ^£3 mate.
Game 49 The number of people who missed the
C. Luciani-M. Petro vie mate is astonishing - and I do not mean
Nova Gorica 2001 on the 4th move, but on the 7th! Still,
when people take the queen with
1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £ic6 3 ±c4 £)d4? 7.. .<5ixc2+, they usually win too.
4.. .exd4
Now we have a position from a dubi¬
ous line in the Spanish with an extra
move for White. Somehow this is not
good news for Black.
5 c3!
White has a lead in development and
for this reason wants immediate confron¬
tation.
5...J.C5?
Another mistake. It is not easy to guess
that Black is rated 2210. Strongest was

140
 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines

5...dxc3, though after 6 <?3xc3! c6 7 d4

8 Uto White has a clear advantage, Game 50
in space and development. P.Velicka-P.BIatny
Czech Team Championship 1997

1 e4 e5 2 £if3 <S3c6 3 A,c4 h6?!

6 Jlxf 7 +! <i>e7
If 6...*xf7 7 Wh5+ and 8 Wlxc5 of
course.
7 0-0 £>f6 8 ±b3 d5 9 d3 h6 10 cxd4 Of course this is not very strong; at
±xd4 11 4ic3 least it is not losing by force.
4d4!
I will ignore other moves, as they
hardly make sense.
4...exd4 5 <£lxd4
Again this move makes most sense.
Others:
a) 5 c3 d3 6 0-0 d6 7 ±xd3 i.e7 8 c4
jtf6 9 h3 <53ge7 was P.Svidler-P.Blatny,
Gausdal 1992, and I am not convinced
that White is better at all here.
b) 5 jtxf7+ <4>xf7 6 0-0 V2-V2 M.Munoz
Sanchez-J.Guerrero, Guayaquil 2003, was
11...<Slg4? probably some kind of joke, but I don’t
Now what is this? get it...
12 £}xd5+ *e8 13 J,f4 fif8?! c) 5 0-0 d6 (5..Jtc5 6 c3 d3 was also
Another sacrifice. played by Blatny a few times, when White
14 ®xc7+ 4?e7 15 #d2 lxf4 has a slight edge; to have real theory on
And another one. this seems ridiculous) 6 40xd4 Jk,e7 7
16 #xf4 ±e5 17 #f7+ *d6 18 4lc3 Jtf6 8 iLe3 ^3ge7, C.Schlingensie-
®e8+ *c6 1-0 pen-P.Blamv, Austrian Team Champion¬
Mate is coming. ship 1995, was of course worse for Black,

141
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

though the grandmaster still made a full I do not believe this. Instead 8...d6 is
point out of his favourite line. just a bit better for White.
5..M16 9 0-0?
This is apparendy Blatny’s idea, but 9 4?3b5! again seems critical: 9...Axel
honestly... (9...1rxg2 10 Hfl! JLxe3 11 £>xc7+ 4>d8
12 £lxa8 transposes) 10 ,$3xc7+ "i£?d8 11
£\xa8 Wxg2 12 Sfl l.f4 13 £ld2 £lf6 14
1Bra4 should favour White, although these
things are never entirely simple, e.g.
14.. .£lfg4 15 ®a5+ b6 16 Wfxa7 <S)xh2 17
Wxb6+ *e7 18 £)c7 i,xd2+ 19 &xd2
£lxfl+ 20 fixfl 'Brxe4 21 f4! and White
has a winning attack.
9.. .6f6 10£ld2
10 £>b5 &xe3 11 £kc7+ &d8 12
$3xa8 jtf4 13 #a4!P again looks very du¬
bious for Black.
10.. .0-0?
Natural, but missing the option to Instead 10...d5?! 11 ±f4 ±d6 12 exd5
force an advantage. Here 6 4tlb5! looks was also good for White in M.Senff-
crushing! P.Blamy, Budapest 1999. But 10...d6! is
a) 6..Jtc5 7 0-0 A.b6 8 Ae3 £le5 9 probably not too bad anymore.
Ab3 thzl 10 a4! and Black is suffering.
b) 6...jtb4+ is surprisingly hard to re¬
fute, but I will try all the same: 7 Ad2
We5 8 £Mc3! (with the plan of 9 <S3d5)
8.. .5M4 9 £>xd4 #xd4 10 We2 4&f6 11
0-0-0 with a clear plus for White.
6.. .1c5 7 c3 ^e5 8 £e2 #96?

11 £lf5!
White is already winning.
11 ...J,d6 12 f4 &eg4 13 J.d4! h5 14
h3 £ih6 15 £>xh6+ «hch6 16 e5 £id5
17 exd6 <5lxf4 18 dxc7 #g5 19 Ixf4
19 Af3!? £>xh3+ 20 <S?h2 was obvi¬
ously winning too.

142
 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines

19...#xf4 20 J.xh5 d5 21 We2 Wxc7 is for the queen now that no knight can
22 We5 tbce5 23 J,xe5 Ie8 24 Ad4 come to d5) 7 h3 0-0 8 JsLb3 43a5 9 Jlc2
J,f5 25 flfl ±g6 26 ±xg6 fxg6 27 c5 10 d4 Wc7 R.Basirov-S.Voitsekhovsky,
&f3 fle2 28 Sf2 He6 29 Id2 flae8 Kstovo 1994 had reached a Spanish style
30 <i>f1 b6 31 M2 ld6 32 c4 fled8 position with approximately equal
33 J,g3 H6d7 34 ±h4 1-0 chances.
c) 4 c3 leaves us with two main lines:
Game 51
J.Van der Wiel-U.Baumgartner
Hol^oster am See 1981

1 e4 e5 2 4}f3 £ic6 3 l,c4 g6

This semi-Philidor variation can also
be reached with 3...d6, though there are
some marginal differences, as can be seen
from the notes.

cl) 4...i.g7 5 d4 d6 6 0-0 (after 6 dxe5

dxe5 7 Wb3 We7 8 £\g5 £ld8 9 0-0 h6 10
£lf3 £}f6 11 Sel 0-0 Black had equalised
and later won in A.Shchekachev-Ye
Rongguang, Antwerp 1996) and now:
ell) 6...^)f6 (I cannot see any other
satisfactory moves here; it is difficult for
Black to develop satisfactorily) 7 dxe5
£lxe5 8 4lxe5 dxe5 9 Wxd8+ ifrxdS 10
Axf7 <£ixe4 11 J.e3 with a slight White
In this game we shall look at the more advantage in the endgame. Of course it is
quiet options. It does not seem logical to possible to play like this as Black. We all
allow Black to slowly build up his posi¬ know that you need two weaknesses to
tion, as structurally he will be OK. In¬ win a game, and right now Black only has
stead: one. But then again it is hardly advisable
a) 4 d4! is considered in the next two to enter an endgame that is already ‘half
games. lost’.
b) 4 0-0 seems a bit slow. I firmly be¬ cl 2) 6...h6?! does not make it easier for
lieve that White’s only chance for an ad¬ Black: 7 JLe3 £lge7 (after 7...$If6 8 dxe5!
vantage is to put pressure on the black then 8...43g4 is probably necessary and
centre immediately. After 4...JLg7 5 flel following 9 exd6 *?Ixe3 10 fxe3 Wxd6 11
d6 6 c3 <2if6 (the knight belongs here; e7 Wxd6 cxd6 12 ^3a3, White’s extra pawn

143
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

should count for something) 8 dxe5 dxe5 is worth trying when White might be a bit
9 We2 J=e6P! (though if 9...0-0 10 Bdl better; instead 6 h4 $3a5! is probably OK
We8 11 $11x12 and White is better) 10 for Black, if somewhat unconventional)
J=xe6 fxe6 11 Bdl Wc8 12 $la3 with a 5.. .$lf6 6 £>c3 h6 7 J,e3 d6 8 W62 $la5
clear advantage for Villi te in Wu Xibin- and there is no real argument to counter
Ye Rongguang, Chinese Team Champi¬ the claim that Black is absolutely fine,
onship 1987. R.Greger-J.Hvenekilde, Danish League
c2) 4,..d6!P 5 d4 Well (played like this, 1994.
the variation seems like a sound version 5 c3
of the Three Knights with 4...h6 and later 5 $3g5 $3h6 6 h4 (again 6 a3!P) 6...$3a5
...g7-g6; for those wandng to avoid the¬ does not appear to be too dangerous for
ory, this kind of position must be very Black here either.
attractive) 6 dxe5 (6 d5 $Y18! should give 5.. .J,g7 6 h4!?
Black a perfectly playable position; the
white pieces are not ideally placed, and
the black knight will go to f7 and support
...Jtg7-h6 later on) 6...$3xe5 7 $3xe5 dxe5
8 0-0£>f6 9 WO ±e6 10 J.g5 ±gl

6.. .h6
6.. .$3f6 7 $3g5 0-0 8 h5! would give
White a very strong attack, based on
8.. .£kh5? 9 Bxh5! and wins.
7 h5 g5
and the question is whether White has This is a slight weakening of the king-
any advantage at all here. I doubt it. side pawn structure, of course, but there
E.Mednis-V.Korchnoi, Vienna 1986, con¬ are more important things in the position.
tinued 11 $3d2 h6 12 Axfh Jlxf6 13 8 £)bd2 $T6
±xe6 '#xe6 14 $3c4 !,g5 15 b3 0-0-0 16 8.. .$3ge7!P 9 £>fl £>a5 10 ±h5+ ±d7
fladl c6 17 Sxd8+ Bxd8 18 Bdl h5 19 11 Jlxd7+ Wxd7 12 $le3 f5 with unclear
Bxd8+ Jlxd8?? (19...‘Axd8 was quite play was also interesting.
even) 20 Wxf7! Wxf7 21 $Y16+ i>c7 22 9 £lf1 d5!? 10 exd5 $lxd5 11 Wb3
£lxf7 jfcfS 23 &fl 1-0. £ice7
4...d6 1 l...$3a5 12 ^4+ $3c6 with approxi¬
Or 4...i.g7 5 ,t,g5 (5 $3g5!P $lh6 6 a3 mately even chances was interesting too.

144
 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines

12 J,e3 exd4
This is pretty much forced, as 4...jS.g7
5 dxe5 $hxe5 6 £)xe5 jtxe5 is very unfor¬
tunate indeed: 7 JsLxf7+! <i?xf7 8 Wd5+
*f6? 9 l.g5+! <4xg5 10 Wxe5+ and
White wins.
5 l,g5!?
5 <53xd4! Jig7 6 £lxc6 bxc6 7 0-0 d6
transposes to the next game.
Instead 5 c3!? is the official ECO refu¬
tation, but matters are actually less clear.
5...dxc3 6 <53xc3 d6! is probably the only
sensible way to continue, as most decent
12.. .Jle6 players would see within a few minutes
12...c6!? was a good alternative, and if that 6...d6 is an absolutely necessary move
13 0-0-0 b5 14 Axd5 WxdS 15 c4 bxc4 (here 6...i.g7? 7 Wb3 #e7 8 £)d5 ®xe4+
16 dxc4 ®a5 with good play for Black. 9 Ac2 ^3a5 10 ®dl is clearly better for
Probably 13 d4!? with unclear chances White, but 10 Wdl does not deserve the
would be the best way for White to re¬ T in ECO, as 10 <53xc7+ ®d8 11 t'xf?
spond. just wins) and then:
13 0-0-0 c6?!
Black is playing slowly, and sacrificing
a pawn at the same time. White should
just take it!
14 Wxb7! 0-0 15 JLc5!
Now Black is tied up and White has a
clear advantage.
15.. .1.8 16 #a6 #c7 17 £>g3 Ac8
18«a3 4}b6?! 19l,d6!
Picking up another little one.
19.. .^xc4 20 dxc4 Wb7 21 J,xe5
Axe5 22 4ixe5 £tf5 23 <S3g4 *g7 24
»c5 <Sxg3 25 Wd4+ 4>f8 1-0 a) 7 1Bfb3 is less threatening now. After
Black resigned as 26 ®i8+! is mate in 7...1Brd7! 8 £3d5 Jlg7 I do not see a path
four moves. leading to an advantage. 9 Ji,d2 and JE,c3
is probably best, to get real compensation
Game 52 for the pawn. The tactical line 9 0-0?!
A.Deev-E.Polihroniade £3a5 10 Wb5 £)xc4 11 ?3xc7+ $d8 12
Kusadasi 1990 Wxd7+ Sfexd7 13 ^3xa8 b6 is just bad for
White, as the two bishops should eventu¬
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 &c6 3 Ac4 g6 4 d4 ally tell.

145
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

b) 7 ±g5! is the most annoying, when 1999, when Black should probably equal¬
7.. .f6 is the logical reply (actually 7...JLe7 ise with 10...We5! 11 c3 jtd7 when the
and 7...'Hrd7!? also look playable; White 4*3bl cannot go to the dream square d5.
surely has compensation for the pawn, 6.. .d6
but in these modern times defensive 6...‘53f6!? seems perfectly playable too:
methods have been refined, and a pawn a) 7 ^3xd4 should probably be met by
has somehow increased in value...) 8 Ac3 the greedy 7...£ke4!?. After 8 <2lb5 J.b4+
9 h3 (not the most energetic, but 9 c3 (9 £Mc3 0-0 is fine for Black)
otherwise g4 might prove to be a good 9.. Jta5 10 0-0 0-0 11 ±d5 ®f6 12 ±gS
stepping stone for the knight to go to e5) White has compensation for the pawn, of
9.. .1.g7 10 £k)4 (here 10 ®fd5 fU7 11 course, but I still believe that the dangers
0-0-0 looks aggressive, but after ll...<§3f7 for Black are not too great.
12 h4 h5 13 ^bl 0-0 Black is in the game b) 7 e5 ^3h5 8 Jth6 d6 9 exd6 Wxd6
and still has the extra pawn; also 12 10 0-0 JLe6 11 Axe6 fxe6 12 Sel 0-0-0
Wxf7+? #xf7 13 ±xf7+ ^xf7 14 £ld5 is was at least fine for Black in O.Eismont-
not strong: 14..JLd7! 15 £3xc7 Sac8 16 S.Biro, Eger 1993.
£ld5 £)b4+ 17 <£>bl ^xd5 18 Sxd5 ±c6 7 £>xd4
and Black is better with the two bishops) 7 0-0 Af6 8 c3 with unclear play was
10.. .£kd4 11 ±xd4 c6 12 0-0 »e7 13 f4 also possible.
with an unclear game in M.Reinert- 7.. .£>xd4 8*fxd4 Af6 9 e5!
J.Hvenekilde, Allerod 1984.
5.. .1.e7

White does not really have an alterna¬

tive here (if 9 fkB i.e6 10 ®b5+ c6 11
6Af4 Wxb? Axc4 12 'ffxc6+ ifefB and Black is
6 J,xe7 «xe7 7 0-0 £lf6 8 lei (8 e5 better). Now Black loses this game very
9 Sel 0-0 seems to be OK for quickly, but it is hard to believe that he is
Black, e.g. after 10 £lbd2 d6!) 8...0-0 9 at a serious disadvantage at the moment.
Ab3 d6 (9...Se8!? 10 £ixd4 d5 is also 9...dxe5
interesting and sound fot Black) 10 £kd4 9...Wc7\? was interesting. After 10 Wc3
was M.Kobalija-I.Polovodin, Novgorod jtxe5 11 jtxe5 Wxe5 12 '§fxe5+ dxe5 13

146
 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines

Ԥ3c3 c6 the position is very similar to the 17 4ixf6 &xg3

game.
10 ®xd8+ *xd8 11 J.g3 *e7
ll...h5!? was another possibility.
12 <5lc3c6 13 0-0-0

18£\d7! 1-0
Since 18...£lf5 19 Sxe5 is mate.

Game 53
13...£)h6 H.Odeev-V. Vorotnikov
Alternatively: Moscow 1999
a) 13...b5P! 14 JLb3 a5 15 a4 b4 is the
idea of Fritz but after simple moves like 1 e4 e5 2 £if3 £ic6 3 ±c4 d6!?
16 £\e4 iLg7 17 Shel f6 18 f4 the ma¬ This might be the most sensible move
chine’s love for the extra pawn withers order, as Black is not yet committed to
away. Maybe one day the computers will ...g7-g6 and might change course to
understand the difference between static ...J&.e7 and ...^3f6, should White decide to
and dynamic features in a position — but sacrifice a pawn with c2-c3. However,
not yet. White gets the advantage all the same.
13..JLe6! was the best try. After 14 4 d4 exd4 5 <£ixd4 g6 6 £>xc6 bxc6 7
jtxe6 ^xe6 15 Shel Black’s position 0-0 Ag7
might look pretty nasty, but maybe he can
hold on!? For example: 15...h5!? 16 h4
(now White no longer has damaging
checks at h4) 16...^3h6 17 lSle4 Shd8 and
although Black is worse, he has reasons to
hope for a draw.
14 Shel Ae6 15 J.xe6 4?xe6 16 ®e4
£if5??
Here 16...Sad8 was called for, with
some advantage for White after 17 ^3xf6
lxdl+ 18 ifcxdl Sd8+ 19 *cl *xf6 20
J,xe5+.

147
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

8 f4! 9e5!
Here White’s advantage should be Here 9 £5?! 0-0 10 fxg6 hxg6 11 jtg5
based on a quick attack on Black’s weak¬ We7 12 *§3c3 ®c5 was slightly better for
ened king’s position. Black in F.Damstaedt-A.Dreev, Berlin
Alternatively: 8 £k3 (or 8...&e7 9 1991.
Ag5 0-0 10 Wf3 &e6 11 ±b3 Wd7 12 9...£se4 10Wf3 d5 11 Ad3
J,f6 was better for White in A.Hunt-
M.Houska, Widey 1999) 9 jtg5 0-0?!
(9...h6!? is the move for the future,
though White should be a little better
after 10 i.h4) 10 Vd2 Ae6 11 J.xe6 (11
±b3P! H>8 12 Ah6 He8 13 i.xg7 <^xg7
14 Bael Wb4, M.Tonchev-Z.Jasnikowski,
Wroclaw 1980, seems OK for Black)
ll...fxe6 12 e5! (‘cormpting Black’s pawn
structure completely’ — Lukacs) 12...dxe5
13 '#xd8 Saxd8 14 Sfel and White is
better.
11 ...4ic5?
11.. .f5 was forced, when Lukacs sug¬
gested 12 exf6 Wxf6!P 13 ±xe4 Wd4+ 14
Ae3 Wxe4 15 Wxe4+ dxe4 16 £M2 Jtf5
17 £k4 and White is only a little better.
12.£e3£)xd3
12.. .«Te7 13 #£2! is not nice either; the
same goes for \2...03e6 13 c4!P.
13 cxd3
Now c5 and c6 are real problems for
Black.
13.. .0-0 14 J,c5 Se8 15 d4!?
8...<?3f6 Here 15 4ld2, with the idea of £3b3-
a) 8...£>h6P! 9 f5! is very uncomfortable d4, was interesting as well, but White
for Black, as f5-f6 is a huge threat, and righdy decides that he can do without it.
after 9...Hfh4? (9...exf5 was necessary') 10 15.. .h5 16 4ld2 Af5 17 lacl Bb8?!
g3 Wf6 11 e5! White was winning in the 17.. .a5 with a clear edge for White was
game J.Mestel-P.Large, London Lloyds probably necessary.
Bank 1982. 18 b3 fie6 19 h3 Wh4 20 Ic3 ±h6
b) 8...fh4?! 9 £\d2 £sh6 10 &£3 «h5 21 Bf2!
was played in jor.Nielsen-J.Hvenekilde, Preparing to reroute the knight to g3,
Copenhagen 1980, and after 11 e5! again from where it will decide the game.
White is much better. 21 ...*h7 22 1! Ae4 23 *g3

148
 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines

The endgame after 23..Mxg3 24 ^xg3 4 d4 exd4

a6 25 4lxe4 dxe4 26 He3 just wins of 4...d6 is examined in Games 56-58.
course. 5 £ixd4 d6 6 0-0 £>f6 7 £ic3 0-0 8
23.. .Wd8 24 l.xa7 h3
White has won a pawn for no compen¬
sation. The rest of the game is an example
of futile resistance.
24.. .2a8 25 J,c5 h4 26 We3 f5 27
a4 g5 28 fxg5 lxg5 29 We2 #g8 30
J,a3 Wg6 31 lei! ±e7 32 £)d2 c5
33 4hf3! Hc6 34 Aa3 ld8 35 Vd2!
Wg7 36 Axc5 ±xc5 37 Hxc5 2g6 38
•tff4 Sg8 39 &xh4 Sg5 40 e6! #xd4
41 Hxc7+ S8g7 42 fixg7+ Wxg7 43
£f3 Hg6 44 Wh4+ 4>g8 45 #d8+
*h7 46 #d7 #xd7 47 exd7 2d6 48
4id4 lxd7 49 £ixf5 &g6 50 £>d4 Hb7 8.. .£>e5!?
51 *f1 J.d3+ 52 *e1 Sb4 53 4>d2! 8...Ad7 is covered in the next game.
1-0 Black has also tried:
a) 8...<Slxd4 (slighdy passive, but still
playable) 9 ®xd4 c6 (the exchange of
White’s most active piece by 9.. JLe6 gives
Black problems on the light squares and
therefore cannot be recommended, e.g.
10 ±e3 Wdl 11 Sadi jLxc4 12 Wxc4
Wc6 13 Wd3 Sae8 14 ±d4 ±d8 15 Sfel
^hdl 16 <£kl5 with a clear edge for White
in A.Krutko-S.Dzhambulatov, Dagomys
2004) 10 a4 £>d7 11 Ae3 b6 12 Sadi
Wc7 13 f4 a6 and it is hard to see any
advantage for White, B.Spassky-V.Hort,
Everybody is a smart alec these days... Reykjavik match 1977. White’s play in
Black had had enough. this game I think was probably too slow.
b) 8...Se8 9 Sel J,d7 10 i.f4 (or 10
Game 54 &g5 h6 11 l.h4 4tlxd4 12 flxd4 ±c6
F.Pieri-M.Chiburdanidze with more or less even chances, A.Zude-
Forli 1990 Y.Balashov, German Bundesliga 1996)
10.. JLf8 11 Wd2 h6 12 Sadi a6 13 a4
1 e4 e5 2 £tf3 £lc6 3 J.c4 J.e7 &)c5 14 jtfl Sb8 and Black had decent
This move characterises the Hungarian counterplay in J.Palkovi-J.Stocek, Czech
Defence. Team Championship 1997.

149
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

White’s advances. I am not certain that

White is really better in these positions,
e.g. 10„.&ed7 11 At3 Af8 12 lei c6 13
b3 &b6 14 Ab2 d5 was equal in
B.Rogulj-M.Knezevic, Yugoslav Champi¬
onship 1977.
11 g4!? Af8 12 f5 £ie5 13 g5 £ifd7
14 tfel c6
14...^3b6!P with chances for both sides
was another viable option.
15 ±e3 b5
Or 15...^3b6!P again.
9 ile2 16#f2?
After 9 Ab3 c5! 10 £>f3 c4 11 £>xe5 Is White manoeuvring or something?
(not 11 Aa4? a6 and Black wins) Here 16 a3 looks slow, but then Black has
11.. .cxb3 12 4ld3 bxc2 13 #xc2 Black is to play two more moves to reinstate the
at least equal, J.Ami-D.Lima, Imperatriz threat of ...b5-b4.
2003. 16...b4!
9.. .He8 When allowed, why not?
9...£>g61? 10 Bel Se8 11 Afl Af8 12
a4 a5 13 g3 c6 14 Ag2 gave even chances
in P.Kazakov-V.Shinkevich, Tomsk 2001.
However, I would be surprised if White
can find a more aggressive way to play the
position.
10 f4 £sg6!?

17 g6??
Unnecessary desperation. 17 £lbl c5
18 Ab7 19 4lbd2 £lxf3+ 20 WxB
d5! with the initiative was something
White had to endure. And after 21 Wg3!?
dxe4 22 £3c4 the position is not that
clear.
The knight is a teaser here. It does not 17...bxc3 18^x06*07!?
appear to be very active, it but is never¬ Black could take the knight as well,
theless well prepared to meet most of since after 18...£ixc6 19 gxf7+ &x£7 20

150
 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelim

j|.c4+ <4>e7! it is hard to see anything for c) 9 £htc6!? is so far untried. But, in
White. general, White should seriously consider
19 gxh7+ *h8 20 £ixe5 £ixe5 21 such options in search for a solid opening
bxc3 ±b7 22 Ad3 d5 23 f6 dxe4 24 advantage.
±e2 £>f3+ 25 *h1 2e6 0-1 9...fie8 10^f3 h6
10..JLf8? 11 4<3g5 Be7 walks into 12
Game 55 e5! dxe5 13 ^3xf7 Bxf7 14 jtxf7+ ‘i’xH
K.Kalashnikov-J.Grachev 15 £xe5 £>xe5 16 Wd5+ Ae6 17 Wxe5
Novosibirsk 2001 and White is just winning, A.Wikner-
T.Jugelt, Hamburg 1993.
1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 4lc6 3 Ac4 i.e7 4 d4 11 e5?
exd4 5 *5ixd4 d6 6 0-0 £>f6 7 <5lc3 This simply doesn’t work. Instead,
0-0 8 h3 Ad7 both 11 Sell? and 11 'A’tuZ look namral,
but I prefer 11 a3!? followed by normal
development. Mainly White will feel
blessed that, after ll...Af8 12 ®d3, he
can finally develop his pieces to sensible
squares.
11 ...dxe5 12 <£sg5

This makes perfect sense. White needs

to utilise his space advantage. Instead:
a) 9 Ae3 a6 10 a4 2e8 11 f4 i.f8 12
Wt3 all looks very neat indeed, but then
12...£>b4! 13 2f2 (13 £ld5!? was the
sounder option) 13...c5 14 £3b3 JLc6 15 So this was the idea. But, as Black
Ad5 £3bxd5 16 exd5 4£lxd5 17 ^3xd5 shows, it is not too hard to refute.
JLxd5 18 ®xd5 Bxe3, as in M.Garcia- 12...hxg5 13 fxg5 J,e6 14 lxe6
A.Summerscale, Philadelphia 1999, and i.c5+ 15 ‘A’hl fixe6 16 gxf6 Hxf6 17
White has either lost a pawn, or the plot £>e4 Sxf 1 + 18 #xf1 #d4
after 19 Wxb7 d5 with an initiative for And Black is just a pawn up.
Black. 19 £>g5
b) 9 b3 £>e5 10 ±e2 c5 11 £>£3 Ac6 19 &ixc5 Wxc5 20 c3 was the last at¬
was fine for Black in V.Malaniuk- tempt at resistance.
K.Bryzgalin, Krasnodar 2002. 19. ..Wf2

151
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

strongest players do not find any real ad¬

vantage there at all, and often soon con¬
cede a draw. Therefore we shall look at
the more ambitious 5 d5 in the next
game, while 5 4^c3 is seen in Game 58.
5 dxe5 dxe5 6 #xd8+ Axd8

The endgame is hopeless for White.

The rest is silence.
20 Ad2 *xf1+ 21 Ixfl i.e7 22 £ie4
Sd8 23 g4 £)d4 24 c3 £le6 25 £,e3
Hd3 26 Bel ±h4 27 2e2 &f4 28
Axf4 exf4 29 *h2 f3 30 Id2 Se3 31
&g3 ±g5 32 2d4 i.f6 33 fie4 2d3 7±d5
34 -Sfl Idl 35 4-gl Sbl 36 b3 This game is an example of how Black
i.xc3 37 If4 Sb2 38 Ixf3 J.d4+ 39 can win with this line, even against a
4>h1 Sxa2 40 £ig3 g6 41 £>e4 le2 strong opponent. Ian Rogers is a famous
42 &g5 f6 43 Sd3 c5 44 £sf3 fie3 attacking player, but clearly less danger¬
45 Ixe3 Jxe3 46 i>g2 &f7 47 <4>f1 ous once the queens comes off. By creat¬
4>e6 48 *e2 Ah6 49 4>d3 b5 50 £)h4 ing weaknesses in his own position,
±g5 51 <§hf3 a5 52 h4 Af4 53 *e4 White slowly makes the position difficult
lh6 54 <4>d3 *d5 55 h5 gxh5 56 for himself, though he could have proba¬
gxh5 f5 57 &e1 c4+ 58 bxc4+ bly made a draw all the way to the end.
bxc4+ 59 4>c3 ±g7+ 60 <4>d2 *e4 Other options for White are:
61 4>e2 a4 62 <Slc2 f4 0-1 a) 7 JLb5 Ad7 8 0-0 A.f6 9 c3 £lge7 10
Ae3 4k8 11 £lbd2 V2-V2 R.Kuczynski-
Game 56 M.Krasenkow, Polish Championship
I.Rogers-B.Ivkov 1996.
Bor 1984 b) 7 4lg5 Jtxg5 8 Jtxg5 <53d4 9 4la3
J,e6 10 0-0-0 J.xc4 11 ^xc4 f6 12 ±,e3
1 e4 e5 2 £lf3 £lc6 3 ±c4 ±e7 4 d4 0-0-0 13 c3 £k6 14 lxd8+ tlxd8 15 a4
d6 gave White a slight edge in L.Yudasin-
This is the other main line of the Hun¬ Y.Lapshun, New York (rapid) 2004, but
garian Defence. Usually, books claim that the a game ended in a draw. It is very
White has an advantage by entering the hard to win such a symmetrical position.
endgame, but a closer look shows that the c) 7 4^c3! is clearly the main line, when

152
 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines

Black has tried a lot of different moves: 14.. .J.e6!?

cl) 7...4lT6 8 Ae3! 0-0 (8...^g4 9 l,d2 Black does not want to open the a-flle
0-0 10 h3 £3f6 11 0-0-0 was better for for the white rooks. It is clear anyway that
White in Y.Yakovich-A.Kovalev, Gistrup Black is not worse.
1996; Black is not ready to face a £Y15 15 ±xe6+ *xe6 16 a4 4lc8 17 Ae3
jump) 9 Ac5 He8 10 4^g5 JLe6 11 £ke6 a5!?
fxe6 12 ±b5 Zhdl 13 Axc6 bxc6 14 Aa3 Black does not want White to advance
4lb6 15 b3 White had an enjoyable ad¬ too far. On the minus side Black now has
vantage in E.Vasiukov-F.Gheorghiu, Ma¬ some pawns on dark squares. The
nila 1974. chances are still level.
c2) 7...f6 8 a3 Q)gel (generally I find 18 <4>e2 Ael 19 Ihbl 4ld6 20 4id2
this way of developing dubious) 9 Ae3 b6 21 f3 g6 22 b5
±g4 10 0-0-0 ^c8 11 2d3 4ld6 12 J.a2 Here 22 bxa5 Sxa5 23 c4 Hha8 24 c5
ile7 13 4M2 0-0-0 14 B and White was £lc8 25 cxb6 £\xb6 26 Jkxb6 cxb6 27
better and eventually won in D.Bron- Sxb6+ it?f7 is just a draw.
stein-V.Kozlov, Daugavpils 1978. 22.. .1hd8 23 Idl &b7 24 c4 lac8
c3) 7...&gp7 8 ±e3 £\g6 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 24..Jtc5!? was also possible.
h3 £\a5 11 J.e2 l.e6 12 &g5 ±c4, was 25 ^b3 Bxdl 26 Ixdl Ab4
V.Stoica-V.Hort, Porz 1991, and here
maybe 13 JLg4! gives White a real plus.
c4) 7_&.g4!? looks respectable, e.g. 8
JLe3 &f6 9 ±b5 £ld7 10 0-0-0 £>cb8 11
h3 ±xB 12 ilxd7+ %-*/* A.Shirov-
D.Campora, Biel 1995.
7.. .<age7 8 i.b3 f6 9 c3 £>a5 10
±a4+ 4>f7 11 ^bd2 ie6 12 b4!?
This move is rather committal and
doesn’t really achieve a lot.
12.. .^c4 13 <2lxc4 ±xc4 14 ±b3

Black is ready to advance the c-pawn,

and White will never be able to put a
knight on d5. Now White plays for a full
point (for the opponent!).
27 c5?! bxc5! 28 Icl c6!
Suddenly White is in trouble.
29 b6 c4 30 £id2?!
The white bishop is not very? good and
Black takes this as an invitation to ex¬
change into a promising endgame. In¬
stead 30 Bxc4 c5 was better for Black,

153
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

who will probably try to win the b6-pawn White was clearly better in J.Flis-
very slowly. F.Borkowski, Polish Team Championship
30...Axd2 1981.
30...43d6!P was also promising. 6 ±d3 &f6
31 JLxd2 c5 32 f4 ld8 33 fxe5 fxe5 Black has a reasonable score from this
position as well.
6..JLg4 7 c4 4M7 8 <£k3 43gf6 has also
been played a few times, though not
enough to give a real theoretical evalua¬
tion. Generally I feel that White has good
chances of getting an advantage from the
opening.
7 c4

34 flfl?
A blunder, probably made in severe
time trouble (look at when White resigns).
Black was also better after 34 $Lc3 2d6
35 2b 1 2d3 36 2c 1, but White could still
offer some resistance.
34.. .fld4 35 £g5
If 35 <i>e3 2d3+ 36 &e2 2a3 37 2f8
c3 and wins. 7.. .0-0
35.. .flxe4+ 36 &d1 c3 37 Sf6+ <&d5 The most natural. The alternatives are
38 Sf7 £3d6 39 Sxh7 Sxa4 40 i.d8 a little worse, I think:
Sb4 41 ±c7 0-1 a) 7...c5!? 8 4lc3 4lbd7 has been played
once by Hort. This transposes to the
Game 57 Czech Benoni (1 d4 &f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5
J.Mestel-V.Smyslov e5!P) and could prove a good idea against
L as Palmas Interzonal 1982 players unfamiliar with these closed posi¬
tions.
1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 £ic6 3 ±c4 ±e7 4 d4 b) 7...£ibd7 8 £fc3 0-0 (or 8...£>c5 9
d6 5 d5 4ib8 Ac2 a5 10 h3 $3fd7 11 ±e3 J.f6 12 a3
5...£3a5 looks a little suspect. One ex¬ £T>6 13 b4 and White was better in
ample: 6 Ad3 c5 7 c4 g6 8 0-0 h5P! (this I.Rogers-P.Jagstaidt, Zurich 1994) 9 2b 1
also seems a bit far out) 9 4lc3 ^3h6 10 £lc5 10 i.c2 a5 11 a3 c6 12 0-0 cxd5 13
£3el g5 11 a3 b6 12 b4 £>b7 13 &c2\ cxd5 l.g4 14 h3 Jlxf3 15 1rxf3 a4 16
14 <53d3 <4>g7 15 Aa4 f5 16 ±c6 and Ae3 £>fd7 17 %4 <^h8 18 g3 h6 19 h4

154
 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines

Jtf6 20 <i>g2 was also somewhat better 8.. .C6 9 0-0 4ibd7 lOlbl!?
for White in Zhang Pengxiang- Or 10 ±e3 a6 11 h3 cxd5 12 cxd5
M.Mancini, Cappelle la Grande 2002. £lh5 (here 12...b5 13 a4 b4 14 4)bl a5 15
c) 7...i.g4 8 h3 Ah5 9 £>c3 £>bd7 10 *£lbd2 jtb7 16 flcl <53b6 17 Jtb5 gave
Ae3 0-0 11 0-0 h6 12 g4 i.g6 13 a3 £>h7 White a clear plus in A.Ivanov-
14 <4>g2 and White had the advantage in A.Negulescu, Washington 1998; Black’s
Z.Szabo-Z.Horvath, Gyongyos 1994. advances on the queenside have only fur¬
Black has no easy breaks on the kingside nished him with weaknesses) 13 '&d2 g6
to provide him with counterplay. 14 g4 £>g7 15 £>h2 £)c5 16 £.c2 a5 17 a3
f5 with a very unclear game, B.Stein-
G.Scholz Solis, Hamburg 1986.
10.. .2e8 11 b4 £>f8 12 Bel £>g6 13
±f1 Bf8

8 h3 has also been played, though

White has no reason to fear ...JLg4. Then
Black’s options are:
a) 8...a5 9 &c3 &a6 10 Ae3 &h8 11 a3 14 Wb3
i.d7 12 Ibl &g8 13 g4 g6 14 Sgl #c8 14 dxc6!? bxc6 15 b5 should have been
15 Wc2 b6 16 b4 was a little better for inserted somewhere - just as Black
White in R.Hiibner-P.Herb, Swiss Team should probably should have played
Championship 1999. ...c6xd5 sooner than he did in the game.
b) 8...£>a6 9 £5c3 c6 10 &e3 Se8 11 a3 Now after 15..JLb7 16 a4!? (or most
h6 12 b4 *5^h7 13 tkl2 <53g5 14 £>xg5 other moves). White has a nice queenside
•&xg5 did not quite equalise either in initiative and the d5-square to comfort
S.Shivaji-R.De Guzman, San Francisco himself with.
2002. 14...*h8 15i.b2 cxd5
c) 8...^bd7 9 £>c3 £>h5 10 i.c2 g6 11 At last.
-ih6 Se8 12 Wd2 ±f6 13 0-0-0 a6 14 16 cxd5 <5ig4 17 h3 <Sih6 18 Bbcl
Ag5 b5 was quite complicated and f5!?
probably absolutely fine for Black. 18...iLd7! was probably more exact,
W.Mazul-F.Borkowski, Polish Champi¬ when White should play 19 Sc2!? with
onship 1979. chances for both sides.

155
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

19 ®b5
Heading for e6. Game 58
19.. .fxe4 20 Ixe4 Af5 E.Sveshnikov-R. Kholmov
The immediate 20...£3h4! was much Sochi 1974
stronger. After 21 £}xh4?! Axh4 22 g3
Ag5 White would be forced into 23 f4, 1 e4 e5 2 £3c6 3 Ac4 Ae7 4 d4
which is rather uncomfortable for his d6 5 £3c3
king.
21 Iec4 22 ^xh4?!
White could have kept some advantage
with 22 Blc3! £kf3+ 23 2xf3, when it is
not clear how Black should continue.
22.. .Jixh4 23 g3? Ag5 24 Sdl #b6!

5...£)f6
5.. .exd4 6 <53xd4 <53 f6 7 0-0 would
transpose to 4...exd4 (see Games 54 and
55).
Instead, 5...Ag4 does not seem too re¬
liable: 6 h3 Axf3 (6...Ah5 7 d5! <53d4 8 g4
25 h4?! 4<3xf3+ 9 WxB Ag6 10 Ab5+ must be
This loses straight away, but White was better for White, or if 7...43b8 8 Ae3
in deep trouble anyway. If 25 it cl Axel <53d7 9 a4 with a slight edge) 7 Wxf3 ^3f6
26 ficxcl Ad7 27 #e3 Wxe3 28 fxe3 8 Ab5!? (8 d5 is good too) 8...exd4 9 <§3e2
Sxfl+ 29 Bxfl Axb5, or 25 4lc7 Bac8 £3d7 10 Axc6 bxc6 11 £3xd4 ^3e5 12
26 Acl Ag6! 27 Ae3 Axe3 28 Wxe3 ®e2 and White had a pleasant advantage
Wxe3 29 fxe3 <53 f5 and Black has a clear in A.Rutman-N.Segal, Ozery 1997.
advantage. 6 h3 0-0 7 0-0 a6
25...<53g4! 7.. .<53x64 8 <53xe4 d5 9 Axd5 '@’xd5 10
Now White is just lost. <53c3 ®a5 11 d5 Bd8 seems to gives
26 fidd4 ±h6 Black reasonable counterplay, though
26...exd4 was also fine, of course. after 12 <53d2! (the best test) 12...<53b4 13
27 <S3c7 Sac8 28 53e6 I,xe6 29 dxe6 a3! £3xd5 14 43b3 <S3xc3 15 #xd8+ J,xd8
Sce8 30 Ae2 £3xf2 31 2d5 €3h3+ 32 16 <?3xa5 <53c2+ 17 (&>h2 <53xcl 18 laxcl
^?g2 %1+ 33 i?xh3 tth1 + 34 *g4 and White is slightly better in the end¬
«6cd5 35 Sf4 Sxf4+ 0-1 game.

156
 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines

8 a4 h6 12.. .^3e5!?, with chances for both sides,

looks more appealing.
13 ®xd4 le6 14 lxe6 Sxe6 15 <?3d5
c6
15.. .4M7! with a slight disadvantage
was necessary.
16£ixf6+ Sxf6
16.. .1rxf6 17 #xfti gxf6 18 f3 3ae8 19
ifcfl gives White a very promising end¬
game. But objectively, this was Black’s
best option.
17 #b4! d5 18 *xb7 Hg6

9 lei
a) 9 Ae3 Se8 10 We2 lf8 11 ladl
£dl 12 £b3 exd4 13 £>xd4 £ixd4 14
lxd4 Ae6 was also dose to equality in
D.Barua-K.Mokry, Fninze 1983.
However, I believe White can prove an
advantage with...
b) 9 d5 ^3a5 10 i.a21? (10 £d3 c5 11
43d2 J.d7 gives Black good counterplay)
10.. .C5 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 b4 4t3b7 13 le3
Wc7 14 '®d3 and White looks better or¬
ganised. A future b4-b5 will take control 19 Se3??
over d5 and hopefully leave some black An incredible blunder; only this move
pawns weakened on the queenside. loses the tempi required to drop the
9.. .1e8 10 b3 exd4 game. Instead, after something like 19
Or 10...1f8 11 lb2 £dl 12 &h2 exd5 ®xd5 (or 19...1c5 20 dxc6 la7 21
exd4 13 *Slxd4 g6 14 <53xc6 lxc6 15 Wf3 c7!) 20 g4 Sd8 21 #xa6 h5 22 Hadl
J.g7 with even chances, M.Corden- White is very close to winning.
J.Mestel, British Championship 1978. 19...!c5 20 Bf3 Ba7! 0-1
11 £lxd4 148 12 lb2 £sxd4 The white queen is trapped.

157
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Summary
On move three Black has two notable alternatives (to 3...jtc5 and 3...£3f6), which are
3.. .g6 and 3...J.e7. (3...d6 will transpose to one or other, depending on where Black
puts the dark-squared bishop.) Of these, 3...g6 seems frankly dubious because of 4 d4
exd4 5 #Wd4 jcg7 6 £lxc6! and later on 8 f4! with the initiative for White. Black simply
cannot develop pleasandy.
The Hungarian Defence with 3.. JLe7 is another story. As can be seen above, after
the theoretical 4 d4 Black gets a reasonable game with both 4...exd4 and 4...d6. White
might be on the verge of an edge in some lines, but this is no worse than Black can
expect in other slighdy passive systems. 3..JLc5 and 3...^f6 are still the best moves, but
3.. .J,e7 is not trailing so far behind.

1 e4 e5 2 £if3 4lc6 3 £c4 i.e7

3.. .*S^d4 - Game 49
3.. .h6 - Game 50
3-g6
4 d3 - Game 51
4 d4 exd4 (D)
5 J.g5 - Game 52
5 £3xd4 Ag7 6 £3xc6 bxc6 7 0-0 d6 - Game 53
4 d4 exd4
4.. .d6 (D)
5 dxe5 - Game 56
5 d5 - Game 57
5 Ohc3 £lf6 — Game 58
5 £sxd4 d6 6 £ic3 <&f6 7 0-0 0-0 8 h3 (D)
8.. .£)e5 - Game 54
8.. JLd7 - Game 55

4... exd4 8 h3

158
 INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES |

Alekhine.A-Tarrasch.S, Mannheim 1914.11

Anderssen.A-Dufresne.J, Berlin 1852.120
Asker.S-Miettinen.K, Correspondence 1998.72
Bademian Orchanian.J-Servat.R, Mar del Plata 1992. 70
Bronstein.D-Comp. Heuristic Alpha, The Hague 1992.128
Chigorin.M-Alapin.S, Vienna 1898.114
Chigorin.M-Shabelsky.M, Correspondence 1884.118
Chigorin.M-Steinitz.W, London 1883.98
Chigorin.M-Steinitz.W, Telegraph match 1891.106
Coleman.G-Hawkins.N, Correspondence 1993.94
Comp. Fritz 6-Anand.V, Man vs. Machine rematch, Frankfurt (rapid) 1999.23
De Boer.W-Van der Kooij.J, Correspondence 1992.124
Deev.A-Polihroniade.E, Kusadasi 1990.145
Estrin.Y-Angelov.P, Correspondence 1970. 95
Fang.J-Ivanov.A, Manchester, USA 1999.28
Felgaer.R-Hector.J, Copenhagen 2002.54
Gielge.G-Poscher.E, Correspondence 1992.88
Grosar.A-Gross.D, Buekfuerdo 1995.136
Gunnarsson.J-Sasikiran.K, Elista Olympiad 1998.81
Hansen.S.B.-Stefansson.H, Copenhagen 1994.134
Havulinna.M-Nissi.J, Correspondence 1992.100
Hergott.D-Garcia.G, Unares 1994.35
Iordachescu.V-Gyimesi.Z, Rumania 2004.43
Jobava.B-Aronian.L, European Championship, Antalya 2004.104
Kalashnikov.K-Grachev.J, Novosibirsk 2001.151

159
Italian Game and Evans Gambit

Karpatchev.A-Renner.C, German Bundeskga2003.Ill

Kasparov.G-Anand.V, Riga 1995. 75
Kasparov.G-Piket.J, Amsterdam 1995. 67
Larsen.B-Ochsner.T, Danish Championship, lishjerg 1997.S
Luciani.C-.Petrovic.M, Nova Gorica2001.140
Marsden.J-Sutton.J, Correspondence 2001.M
Mestel.J-Smyslov.V, / ms Palmas Interzonal 1982.154
Morozevich.A-Adams.M, Wijk aan Zee 2001.125
Movscsian.S-Morozevich.A, Prague (rapid) 2002.49
Nevednichy.V-Gyimesi.Z, Miskolc 2004.47
Odeev.H-Vorotnikov.V, Moscow 1999.147
Fieri.F-Chiburdanidze.M, Fork 1990.149
Pirrot.D-Jenni.F, Cappelle la Grande 2002.85
Ponomariov.R-Giorgadze.G, Krasnodar 1997.64
Rogers.I-Ivkov.B, Bor 1984.152
Salygo.A-Boshoer, Correspondence 1971.91
Shirov.A-Timman.J, Biel 1995..78
Short.N-Aleksandrov.A, I^mir 2004.6
Short.N-Hiibner.R, Dortmund 1997.130
Skotorenko.V-Ahman.H, Correspondence 1976.116
Stevic.H-Rogic.D, Vinkovci 1995.61
Sveshnikov.E-Dautov.R, Pinsk 1986. 17
Sveshnikov.E-Georgiev.Kir, Eksta 1998. 57
Sveshnikov.E-Kharitonov.A, Russian Championship, Krasnoyarsk 2003. 82
Sveshnikov.E-Kholmov.R, Sochi 1974.156
Sveshnikov.E-Stefansson.H, Uepaya (rapid) 2004.20
Tyomkin.D-Zugic.I, Montreal2004.15
Van den Doel.E-Sokolov.I, Dutch Championship, Feeuwarden 2004.31
Van der Wiel.J-Baumgartner.U, Holzpsteram See 1981.43
Velicka.P-Blatny.P, C^ech Team Championship 1997.141
Vysochin.S-Kapnisis.S, Corinth 2004.40
Vysochin.S-Klovans.J, Cappelle la Grande 2005.52
Yudasin.L-Lenderman.A, Philadelphia 2004.44

160