1 P-Q4 N-KB3 2 P-Q84 P-84 3 P-QS P-QN4 4 P x P P-QR3 5 P X P 8 X P 6 N-Q83 P-Q3 7 N-83 P-N3 8 P-KN3 8-KN2 9 8-N2 0-0 10 0-0 QN-Q2
The fianchetto of the White King Bishop is a frequent choice. By developing his Bishop in this way he of course abandons the diagonal KB 1 -QR6 to his opponent's Queen Bishop, but he is able to castle without difficulty. Tournament experience has shown that in this variation too, Black obtains enough counterplay to com pensate for the gambit pawn. As in other variations, Black will occupy the QN and QR files with his Rooks, and by the Knight maneuvers N-N3-B5 and N-K l -B2-N4 he will try to exert pressure against White's Queenside with the invaluable aid of the powerful King Bishop. White's KB, on the other hand, frequently plays only a minor passive role or eventually is forced to return to KB 1 to be exchanged for Black's QB.
The most frequently played moves for White here are 11 Q-82, 11 R-N1 and 11 R-K1. These three moves may be played in one or another sequence or combination and the variations may trans pose b ack and forth. But the Black replies are what give the varia tions their individual character.
There are three Queen developing moves for Black to consider:
11 . . . Q-R4, 11 . . . Q-N3 and 11 . . . Q-B2. It has not yet been determined which of the three is "best, " since each has certain advantages and disadvantages compared with the others. The effi-
cacy of one or the other move m ay therefore be said to depend on Black's mood.
E 1
1 1 . . . Q-R4 seems superficially t o b e the most aggressive. Its disadvantage, however, is that the Queen can be more easily at tacked here than on other squares, for example after White plays B-Q2, when Black must be wary of sudden moves by White's Queen Knight.
An unsuccessful approach for White was seen in Podgaetz-Peev, Varna 1 972 (continue from last diagram) : 11 R-N 1 Q-R4 12 Q-B2 KR-N 1 13 R-K1?! ( 1 3 R-Q 1 , protecting the QP, is better) 1 3 . . . P-R3 ?! 1 4 B-R3 B-B5 ! 1 5 N-Q2 N-N3 1 6 N x B (If 1 6 P-K4 N-Kl and White has problems with his center pawns) 16 . . . N xN 1 7 R-Q 1 N-K l 1 8 B-Q7 (If 1 8 B-Q2 N X B 1 9 R X B R X P ! , etc.) 1 8 . . . B X N 1 9 P X B R X R 2 0 Q X R N-B3. Black i s a little better and eventually won.
1 1 Q-B2 Q-R4 12 R-N1 was played in Padevsky-Browne, Sara jevo 1 970, which continued: 12 . . . KR-N1 1 3 B-Q2 N-N3 1 4 P-N3 Q-R6 (Black has equalized) 1 5 B-B 1 Q-R4 1 6 B-Q2 Q-R6 1 7 B-B 1 , drawn b y repetition o f moves.
An improvement for Black was seen in Forintos-Browne, Skopje Olympiad 1972: 12 . . . N-N3! 1 3 R-Q 1 N-B5 14 N-Q2 N-Q2 1 5 B-R3? (Driving th e Knight to a better square. I t was better to simplify by N X N) 1 5 . . . N/ 2-N3 1 6 P-R3 N x N 1 7 P-QN4(?) N x R ! (Black now gets a clear superiority) 1 8 Q x N (If 1 8 P x Q N x N 1 � P X N N x R 2 0 Q x N KR-N 1 with the better of it) 1 8 . . . N X P 1 9 N x N P X P 20 P X P Q-Q 1 2 1 B-N 5 R-K l 22 P-N5 B-N2 and Black had a m aterial and positional superiority although he eventually lost the game.
In Perevoznik-E. Bilek, Balatonszepla:-: 1 97 1 , the continuation was: 11 Q-B2 Q-R4 12 R-Q1 KR-N 1 (N-N 3 is probably better) 13 B-Q2 N-N3 14 P-N 3 N-K 1 15 P-K4 P-BS (Equality has been achieved) 16 N-QR4 Q-N4 17 N x N P x P 1 8 Q x P Q x N 1 9 QR-N 1 Q-B2 2 0 Q-K3 Q-B7 2 1 QR-B 1 Q X RP 2 2 N-Q4 Q-R5, drawn.
The continuation 11 R-N1 Q-R4 (see also Laver-Benko in the Appendix) 12 P-QR3 KR-N1 13 B-Q2 was seen in Akvist-Eskols-
son, Varna 1 969: 1 3 . . . N-N5 1 4 Q-B2 N / 5-K4 1 5 N X N N X N 1 6 P-QN4? ( A premature attempt to free himself from the pres sure) 16 . . . P X P 17 P X P Q-B2 1 8 KR-B 1 N-B5 1 9 R-N 3 N X B 2 0 Q X N Q-B5 (Black stands a l ittle better) 2 1 Rl l -N 1 R-QB 1 22 N-K4 Q X KP 2 3 Q-B4? B-Q6 24 B-B3 Q-B7 25 B-Q 1 Q-B5 , White resigned.
The game Barendregt-Bukal , Zagreb 1 97 1 , continued: 13 N-Q2?!
R-R2 14 N-R2 Q-B2 1 5 P-QN4?! B-N4 1 6 N-QB3 P X P 1 7 N X B R X N 1 8 R X P R X R 1 9 P X R R-R7 (The chances are about equal) 20 P-K4 N-N3 21 N-N3 N-R5 22 B-Q2 Q-B5 (Now Black has the edge) 23 N-B 1 R-B7 24 R-K 1 N-N5 ! 25 B-B 1 Q-Q5 26 N-Q3 R-R7 27 Q-B 1 P-R4 28 B-K3 Q x KP 29 Q-B8ch K-R2 30 N-B 1 R-B7 3 1 Q-Q7 N x B 3 2 Q x N Q-B6? (Black wins easily with_ 3 2 . . . R X P ! ) 3 3 N-Q3 , a n d White i s winning material and the game.
The early N-Q2 by White was tried in a slightly different posi tion (White plays Q-B2 and R-K 1 instead of R-N 1 and P-QR3) in a game Haigh-Vogt, Skopje Olympiad 1 972: 11 Q-B2 Q-R4 12
R-K 1 KR-N1 13 N-Q2? N-K 1 1 4 N-N 3 Q-N5 1 5 N-Q2 N-B2 16 P-QR3 Q-R4 17 R-N 1 P-B5 (Black has a strong initiative) 1 8 N/ 2-K4 (If 1 8 P-K4 N-B4-Q6. See the following example for more on the dangers of P-K4) 1 8 . . . N x P 19 B-Q2 N x N 20 N x N R-R2 and Black won.
An important point was demonstrated i n Lorinczi-Browne, Siegen 1 970: after 11 R-K1 Q-R4 12 Q-B2 N-N 3 1 3 P-K4 KN-Q2 1 4 B-N 5 KR-K 1 1 5 N-Q2, White was already in trouble. The move P-K4 makes sense only if P-K5 can be successfully achieved; other wise the move only weakens White's Q 3 . The text move prevents Black's plan of N-B5 followed by N x NP, a possibility which is a strong motivating force behind Black's earlier Q-R4. If instead 1 5 B-Q2, the answer 1 5 . . . N-B5 is embarrassing because White's KR prevents the Bishop from retreating to K l . Also, on 1 5 QR-Q 1 N-B5 1 6 B-QB 1 , the unpleasant reply is 1 6 . . . N-R6 . The actual game continued: 1 5 . . . N-K4 16 N-N3 B-Q6 1 7 Q-B 1 Q-N5 1 8 B-R6 B-R l 1 9 N-Q2 N/ 4-B5 20 N X N N X N 2 1 P-QR4 Q x NP (Black has an edge) 22 Q X Q N X Q 23 KR-QB l KR-N 1 24 P-R5 R-N6 25 B-Q2 N-B5 26 B-K 1 N-R6 27 B-B 1 B X B 28 K X B R X P 2 9 R-R2 R-R2 30 P-B3 N-N4 3 1 R X R N x R 3 2 K-N2 P-B4, Wh ite resigned.
Another example of a poorly timed P-K4 was M ista-Spiridonov, Cienfuegos 1 972, which reached this variation by transposition:
1 P-Q4 N-KB3 2 P-QB4 P-KN3 3 N-KB3 B-N2 4 P-KN3 0-0 5 B-N2 P-B4 6 P-QS P-Q3 7 0-0 P-QN4!? 8 P xP P-QR3 9 P X P
B X P 1 0 R-K1 QN-Q2 11 P-K4?! N-NS 1 2 N-B3 Q-R4 1 3 P-KR3 N/ 5-K4 1 4 N x N N X N 15 B-B 1 KR-N 1 (Black is definitely better already) 1 6 B X B Q x B 17 K-N2? (R-K2) 1 7 . . . N-Q6 (The pun ishment for P-K4) 1 8 R-K2 N x NP! 1 9 B X N R X B 20 R X R B X N 2 1 R/ 1 -N 1 B X R 22 R X B Q-B5 23 Q-K2 Q x Q 24 R X Q R-R6. Black stands much better and won the endgame on the 48th move.
E2
The advantage of 1 1 . . . Q-N3 is the pressure Black exerts im mediately on the QN file. Also, the Queen is less exposed to danger on N3 than on R4. Its disadvantage lies in the fact that the Queen temporarily obstructs the maneuver N-N 3-B5 .
The game Vukic-Djukic, Sarajevo 1973, continued (from the last diagram): 11 Q-B2 Q-N3 12 R-Ql (see also the game Vukic-Benko in the Appendix) 1 2 . . . KR-N 1 1 3 R-N 1 N-N5!? 14 B-Q2 N/ 5-K4 1 5 N X N N x N 1 6 P-N3 B-QB 1 1 7 P-KR3 Q-R3 1 8 P-B4 N-Q2 1 9 P-K3 Q-R6 ( 1 9 . . . B X N?! 20 Q X B Q x P? 21 R-R 1 , etc.) 20 N-R4 N-N 3 ? (Trading the bad White Knight. Better is 20 . . . N-B3 to be followed by B-Q2, or if 21 B-QB 1 Q-N5 22 P-R3 B-B4, etc.) 2 1 B-QB 1 Q-N5 22 P-R3 Q-R4 23 B-Q2 Q-R3 24 N x N R X N 25 P-QR4 (White has the better chances) 25 . . . B-B4 26 P-K4 B-Q5ch 27 K-R2 B X RP?? (The unusual rate of play in this tournament was one hour for the entire game, which partly explains this desperate try. After 27 . . . B-Q2, White still has a long way to go) 28 K X B Q-K7 2 9 B-KB 1 Q-B6 30 B-B4, and Black resigned.
Instead of 12 R-Q 1 , the game Jakobsen-Westerinen, Linkoping 1 969, continued 12 R-Nl?, which is a mistake because it allows Black to attack the QR pawn and QP effectively. However, the immediate 12 . . . B-B5 does not work because of 13 N-Q2 (see Szily Foldy below). The continuation was 12 . . . Q-N2! (Now 1 3 R-Q 1 would be met by 1 3 . . . B-B5 1 4 N-Q2 B X RP 1 5 R-R 1 B X P) 1 3 B-N5 N-N3 1 4 B X N (Here 1 4 KR-Q 1 would again b e bad because of 1 4 . . . B-B5) 1 4 . . . B X B 15 KR-Q 1 B X N ( 1 5 . . . B-B5? 1 6 P-N3 B X QP 1 7 N X B N X N 1 8 N-N5 ! P-K3 1 9 N-K4 B-K2 20 N-B3, and White is obviously better) 1 6 P X B B-B5 17 R-N 2 Q-R3 1 8 Q-K4 Q-R5 19 R/ 1 -N 1 B X QP ! 20 Q x P N-B5, with a clear advantage for Black.
In the game between Korchnoi (White) and Quinteros at the Leningrad Interzonal 1 973, the position after Black's 1 1 th move (Q-N3) was reached by transposition. Here, too, the mistake 1 2 R-N l was played, but Black did not take the opportunity to prepare for . . . B-B5 by 1 2 . . . Q-N2 ! Instead, Quinteros played 12 . . .
KR-Nl? and the game continued 1 3 P-N 3 N-K 1 (N-N5 looks more active; if then 14 B-N2 P-B5 15 P X P B X P 1 6 B-QR1 Q-R3, etc.) 14 N-Q2 Q-R4 (Black's Queen has taken two moves to reach this square. Since he could have played Q-R4 in one move, this is something to think about when considering how best to develop this important piece) 1 5 B-N2 P-B5!? 1 6 KR-B 1 (Of course not 1 6 P X P-or 1 6 N x P-because of 1 6 . . . R X B and 1 7 . . . QXN) 1 6 . . . N-K4 1 7 B-QR 1 R-N5 1 8 P X P N x P 1 9 R X R Q X R 2 0 N x N B X N 2 1 B-R3 ! (White now has the edge. This original maneuver is aimed at improving the King Bishop's prospects, e.g. at QB6) 2 1 . . . N-B2 2 2 P-K4 B-Q5 ?! (The Bishop i s unprotected here and therefore, as all the textbooks point out, invites a combination. Better was 22 . . . N-R3 23 B-Q7 N-B4 24 B-B6 B-Q6, etc.) 23 B-Q7 N-R3 24 B-B6 R-R2 (Certainly an awkward place for the Rook, but there is nothing better) 25 R-N 1 Q-R4 (Q-R6 was better, but White retains his advantage after 26 N-N5 B X N 27 B/ 1 X B B-Q6 28 Q-N3, etc.) 2 6 N-N 5 ! B X B (If 2 6 . . . B X N 2 7 B / 1 X B R-B2 28 B-B3 Q-R5 2 9 Q x Q B X Q 30 B-R5, etc.) 27 Q X B, Black resigned.
In a game between Dr. Szily and Dr. Foldy in Budapest 1973, the mistake 12 . . . B-BS? was played, with the continuation 13 N-Q2 ! B-R3 (Admitting his mistake and losing two tempi in the process-1 3 . . . B X RP leaves the Bishop trapped after 14 R-R 1 ) 1 4 P-N3 KR-N 1 1 5 B-N2 N-K 1 1 6 N-R4?! Q-N5 1 7 KR-K 1 N-B2 18 B X B K x B 19 N-QB3 N-K4 20 N-B3 (20 P-KR3 looks more promising, with the idea P-B4, even after 20 . . . P-N4?!) 20 . . . N x Nch 2 1 P xN ? ! Q-Q5 22 QR-Q 1 Q-B3 23 P-B4 N-N4! 24 N X N B x N , drawn. I t i s hard for White to make progress, despite his pawn plus.
After 1 1 R-Nl Q-N3, Johansson-Westerinen, Dresden 1969, con tinued 1 2 B-Q2?, but this is an error which returns the pawn at once and leaves Black with a positional advantage: 1 2 . . . B-B5 1 3 P-N3 B X QP 14 N X B N XN 15 N-N5 P-K3.
Instead of 1 1 R-N 1 , there has been some experience with 11 R-Kl Q-N3.
12 P-K4 was played in Karlsson-Akvist, Ebso 1 970 (also see Aspler-Benko in the Appendix). The continuation was: 1 2 . . . N-N5 ! 1 3 P-KR3 N/ 5-K4 1 4 N-QR4 Q-N2 1 5 R-K3 N X Nch 1 6 R X N B-N4 1 7 N-B3 B-B5 1 8 B-B 1 B x B 1 9 Q x B KR-N 1 2 0 N-Q 1 B-Q5 2 1 P-QR4 N-K4 22 R/ 3-R3 P-B4 23 Q-K2 P X P 24 Q X P Q-Q2 2 5 K-N2 R-N5 2 6 Q-K2 Q-N2, with Black better.
As we can see, when White plays P-K4 prematurely Black's 1 2 . . . N-N 5 ! threatening the KB7 and Q 6 squares i s advantageous. Therefore, White has tried to prepare P-K4 by first preventing . . . N-N5. The game Charpentier-Hook, Panama 1 970, continued 12 P-KR3 KR-N l 13 R-N 1 N-K 1 14 Q-B2 N-B2 15 P-K4 N-N4 1 6 N x N B XN 1 7 P-R3 .
On 1 7 P-N3 Q-R3 i s very strong. The game Thorbergsson Gheorghiu, Reykj avik 1 972, continued: 17 R-K3 (instead of P-R3) R X P 18 R-R3 R X R ( 1 8 . . . R-R1 ! 19 Q-N3 is equal) 1 9 P X R Q-R3 (Now Black is clearly better) 2 0 N-Q2 B-Q5 2 1 B-B l B X B 2 2 R X Rch N X R 2 3 N x B N-Q2 24 B-N2? N-K4 ! 2 5 K-N2 N-Q6
26 B-B3 Q-B5 and White resigned.
Continuing the Charpentier-Hook game (after 1 7 P-R3) 1 7 . . . B-R5 1 8 Q-B4? B-N6 1 9 Q-K2 R-R5 20 N-Q2 N-K4 2 1 N X B Q X N 22 Q-Q 1 Q X Q 2 3 R X Q R X RP (With a clear advantage for Black) 24 B-B 1 R-R5 25 P-B4 N-Q2 26 B-Q3 R/ 5-N5 and Black won.
The game Farago-Bilek, Budapest 1 964, continued (from the diagram after 1 1 . . . Q-N3 above): 12 Q-B2 KR-Nl 13 B-R3!?
(An interesting attempt to prevent . . . N-N5 while activating the Bishop) 1 3 . . . Q-N5 (P-R4!?) 14 P-K4 B-B5 15 P-K5 P X P 1 6 N X P N X N 1 7 R X N R-N2? ! (R-R2 i s better) 1 8 B-N2 N-K l ! 1 9 R-K 1 N-Q3 2 0 P-QR3 Q-N 3 ? (Q-N6 i s stronger) 2 1 N-K4! with an edge for White.
The game Bokor-Bilek, Budapest 1 965, varied with 13 P-KR3
N-K 1 1 4 P-K4 Q-N5?! (N-B2) 1 5 N-Q 1 N-K4 1 6 B-Q2 Q-B5 ! 1 7 B-B3 N-Q6? (Black could have obtained the slightly better chances with 1 7 . . . Q-Q6 ! 1 8 Q x Q N x Q) 1 8 R-K3, and it is White who has a slight edge.
E3
The posting of the Black Queen on QB2 is the most circumspect of the three possibilities under discussion. From her safe haven she will direct the counterplay on the Queenside. This development has neither the disadvantage of being exposed to harassment nor that of being in the way of the maneuver N-N3-B5, but being in a less active position, the hard tooth-and-nail fighting on the Queenside is somewhat postponed.
( 1 P-Q4 N-KB3 2 P-QB4 P-B4 3 P-Q5 P-QN4 4 P X P P-QR 3 5 P x P B X P 6 N-QB3 P-Q3 7 N-B3 P-N3 8 P-KN 3 B-KN2 9 B-N2 0-0 1 0
0-0 QN-Q2)-
11 Q-B2 Q-B2 12 R-Ql was played in Korchnoi-Gurgenidze, USSR Championship 1 957. The game continued: 12 . . . KR-N 1 1 3 P-KR3 N-N3 14 N-Q2 KN-Q2 1 5 R-N 1 N-QB 1 ?! (The start of a plan to win a pawn which is only half successful) 16 P-N 3 Q-R4? (B X N ! ?) 17 B-N2 P-B5 1 8 B-R l ! ( 1 8 P X P? R X B) 1 8 . . . P X P 1 9 N x P (White i s definitely better) 1 9 . . . Q-B2 2 0 N-Q4 R x R 2 1 Q X R R-N 1 22 Q-B 1 B X N 2 3 R X B B X P 2 4 K-R2 (24 N x B? Q x Qch 25 N x Q R-N8) 24 . . . B-R3 25 Q-R6 N-B l 26 R-KR4
(White has a winning attack) 26 . . . Q-N3 27 N-K4 P-B3 28 B X P P X B 2 9 N x Pch K-B2 30 R-KB4, Black resigned.
Instead of 1 2 R-Q 1 , the game Quinteros-Szabo, Vinkovci 1 970, continued: 12 R-N l?! N-N 3 (Q-N2! is more logical-see J akobsen Westerinen in Variation E2) 13 N-Q2 QR-K l ! ? (Black intends a central break a Ia the Volga Gambit instead of Queenside play) 14 R-Q 1 P-K3 1S P X P P X P 16 N/ 2-K4 KN-Q4 1 7 P-QR3 N x N 1 8 N x N P-Q4 1 9 P-K3 R-K2 20 N-R4 N X N 2 1 Q x N B-K7 22 R-K 1 B-Q6 23 R-R 1 R-N 1 (P-BS). Black has a slight edge but he later lost.
After 11 R-Kl Q-B2, the fol10wing position is reached:
12 P-KR3 N-N3 1 3 P-K4 KN-Q2 1 4 Q-B2 N-BS ! , drawn (Szabo Toran, Kapfenberg 1 970).
12 Q-B2 was played in Tritaliatis-Toran, Siegen 1 970, which continued: 12 . . . KR-N l 1 3 B-B 1 ? Q-B l 14 P-K4 (P-KR3, to prevent . . . N-NS, is more exact) 14 . . . N-NS 1 S B X B Q X B 1 6 B-B4 N/S-K4 1 7 N X N N X N 1 8 B X N B X B (Black's position is preferable) 19 R-K2? R X P 20 Q X R B XN 21 Q X B Q X R and Black won, illustrating the fact that a mistake by White in this gambit can be very costly!
In Spassky-Szabo, Goteborg 1 97 1 , the then world champion tried
12 B-Q2?! The game continued: 12 . . . N-N 3 1 3 B-B4 (Provoca tive !) 1 3 . . . KR-N 1 (A routine move. 1 3 . . . N-BS is stronger)
1 4 P-N3 ! N-NS 1 S B-Q2 N-B 1 ?! 1 6 P-KR3 N-K4 1 7 N x N B X N 1 8 R-N 1 N-R2 1 9 Q-B2 P-BS?! 2 0 KR-QB l R-QB 1 2 1 Q-Q l ! P X P 2 2 P X P Q-N2 2 3 N-R2 ! N-N4 2 4 N-N4 N-B6 2 S B X N B X B 2 6 N-B6. The position of this Knight finally gives White some ad vantage, but the game was later drawn.
A sounder method for Black, which in this instance was ad mittedly favored by some cooperation on White's part, was seen in Vincenti-Andrews, Skopje Olympiad 1 972: 11 Q-B2 Q-B2 12 R-K1 N-NJ 13 N-Q2 KR-N 1 14 P-K4? (Since Black has the reply . . . N-N5, as discussed in section B, White should prepare P-K4 by first playing 1 4 P-KR3) 14 . . . N-N 5 1 5 N-B3 N-B5 ! (With a definite advantage for Black. White's P-K4 is a critical thrust and must be carefully prepared) 16 P-KR3 N/ N5-K4 17 N x N B X N !? (N X N is safe) 1 8 B-B 1 Q-Q2 1 9 B X N B X B 20 K-N2 P-B4 2 1 P-B3 P x P 2 2 P x P P-K3 (The opening o f the position i s to Black's advantage) 23 P-R3 Q-QN2 24 P X P B X KP 25 K-R2 Q-K2 26 Q-N2 Q-R5 27 N-Q5 B X N 28 P X B Q-Q5 (28 . . . R-N6? 29 R X B) 29 R-K2 R-N6 30 B-B4(?) B X B 3 1 P X B Q x Pch 32 K-R 1 R-KB 1 (Black has a winning attack) 3 3 QR-K 1 R-KB6 34 R-K8 R-B7 35 Q-K4 R-R7ch, and White resigned in view of mate in one. Instead of developing his Queen, Black can first play 1 1 . . . N-N3, but this usually means only a transposition into the normal lines after 1 1 . . . Q-B2.
After 11 R-K1 N-NJ, de Jonghe-Rosenlund, Viborg 1 970, con tinued: 12 N-Q2 Q-B2 13 Q-B2 B-N2?! 14 P-K4 B-QR3 (Black wanted to force White to play P-K4 by this Bishop maneuver, but it is questionable whether that objective is worth the loss of two tempi) 1 5 P-B4? N-N5 16 N-B 1 (N-B3) B-Q5ch (Black stands better) 17 N-K3 N-B5 1 8 N-Q 1 Q-R4 19 R-K2 N-R6 ! 20 Q-Q2 N x N 21 Q x Q? (The question mark indicates a blunder, but the alternative also loses: 2 1 R X N Q X Q 22 B X Q N-B7, etc.) 2 1 . . . N-B5ch 22 B-K3 N x Q 23 B X B B X R, White resigned.
A game Westerman-Lundwall, Diesen 1 970, continued : 12 P-K4
KN-Q2 1 3 Q-B2 Q-B2 ( 1 3 . . . N-B5 ! ? looks more promising, e.g. 14 P-N3? Q-R4 ! as in Mrs. Honfi-E. Bilek, Budapest 1 970, and if 15 P-K5 N/ 5 X P with advantage to Black) 1 4 P-N 3 P-B5 ? 15 B-N2 KR-B 1 (P X P) 16 P-QN4 N-K4 17 N xN B X N 1 8 P-QR4 and White won.
A recent game Mukhin-Georgadze, USSR 1972, took an entirely different course: 11 R-N1 N-K1?! 12 B-Q2 N-N 3 1 3 P-N 3 N-B2 14 N-KR4 B-N2 (P-B4) 15 P-K4 B X N?! ( 1 5 . . . B-QR3 16 R-K 1 P-B5 is unclear, but offered better chances than the text) 1 6 B X B R X P 1 7 Q-B 1 N-N4 1 8 B-N2 N-Q2 (The chances are about equal) 1 9 Q-R6 N-K4 20 P-R3 (If 20 P-B4 R X B 21 R X R N-N5 22 Q-N 5 N-K6 threatening . . . P-B3) 20 . . . P-B3 2 1 Q-K3 N-R6 22 B X N
R X B. Black has a little the better of it because of White's weak QNP, but the game was eventually drawn.
E4
1 P-Q4 N-K83 2 P-Q84 P-84 3 P-QS P-QN4 4 P x P P-QR3 5 P x P 8 x P 6 N-Q83 P-Q3 7 P-KN3 P-N3 8 8-N2 8-KN2 9 N-R3?! QN-Q2 10 0-0 0-0
Of the many attempts to improve White's chances, one of the most frequently adopted is the development of the King Knight to R3. The idea is good insofar as the Knight does not interfere with the King Bishop's protection of the QP and, in fact, may even help in this respect by going to KB4. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of Black's Queenside play is in no way hindered by White's N-R3 and the Knight may find itself too far away for too long from the main scene of battle, as has been shown by practical experience.
The immediate 1 1 N-84?! was tried in Yanofsky-Gheorghiu, Siegen 1 970. After 1 1 . . . Q-B2 12 Q-B2 KR-N 1 1 3 R-N 1 , Black took advantage of the position of White's KN with 1 3 . . . P-B5 ! With the Knight on KB4, Black does not have to worry about releasing his Q5 square since White cannot play N-Q4-B6. This is another drawback to the development of the Knight to KR3 . The game continued: 14 N-R3? (Now White decides to relocate his Knight via KN5, but his position cannot survive the wasting of so many tempi. He should have tried 14 B-Q2 N-B4 15 KR-B 1 ) 1 4 . . . N-B4 1 5 N-N5 B-QB l ! (The Bishop threatens to find new prospects on KB4. The point is that if White tries to prevent this by P-K4,
his Q3 will be laid bare for exploitation by Black's Knight) 1 6 P-B3? N-R5 ! (Black now stands much better) 1 7 N x N Q-R2ch 1 8 K-R 1 Q X N 19 P-N 3 Q x RP 20 R-N2 P X P 21 R X Q P x Q (P X R i s flashy but unnecessary) 22 R X P P-RJ 2 3 N-R3 N X P and Black won.
I n the game between Antoshi n and M ihailchisin at Sarajevo 1 970, the continuation was 11 B-Q2 Q-N 3 12 R-N 1 KR-N 1 1 3 P-N 3 N-K 1 1 4 Q-B2 N-B2 1 5 P-R4 N-B3 (N-K4 may be better) 1 6 N-B4 R-R2 (White has a little the better of it) 17 P-QN4!? P X P 1 8 B-K3 Q-N2 1 9 N-N5 B X N 2 0 B X R Q X B 2 1 P X B R x P 22 N-Q3 N/ 3 X P 23 P-K4 N-B6 24 R X P R X R 25 N x R N/ 2-N4, and White's slight material advantage was not enough to win.
After 1 1 R-K1 Q-N3, an inferior l ine was chosen in Golombek Sefc, Trencanske Teplice 1 949( !): 12 K-R1? N-K4 13 Q-B2 KR-NJ
1 4 P-B4 N-B5 1 5 P-N3 Q-N5 ! ! (Black will now obtain an irresist ible initiative) 1 6 P X N N-K5 1 7 Q X N B X N 1 8 B-Q2 B X B 1 9 KR-Q 1 B-B6 20 QR-N 1 Q X P 2 1 Q X P R X R 2 2 R X R Q X RP 23 B-K4 Q-R5 24 B-B3 (If 24 B-N2 R-K 1 25 Q X P Q-R7 26 R-N 8 Q-R8ch, etc.) 24 . . . R-K 1 25 Q X P B X P 26 B-N2 Q-B7 27 R-N 1 B-Q5 (Black has a winning position) 28 Q-Q7 R-KB 1 29 P-Q6 B X R 3 0 N x B P-B5 3 1 B-B6 P-B6 3 2 P-R3 Q-Q8 3 3 Q-B7 P-B7, White resigned.
Another try was seen in Eroeybek-Schoenberg, Skopje Olympiad 1 972: 12 Q-B2 KR-N 1 13 R-N 1 N-K4! (White has improved by playing R-N 1 instead of Golombek's inferior K-R l . But his funda mental problems remain) 1 4 N-KN5 B-N2 !? 1 5 R-Q 1 B-QB 1 1 6 N/ 5-K4 (P-N3) B-B4 1 7 N X Nch B x N 1 8 B-K4 B-R6 1 9 P-N 3 N-N5 20 N-R4 Q-R2 (Black's freer position gives him the edge) 2 1 P-K3 N-K4 22 P-B4 N-N5 (White has been given the "free" moves P-K3 and P-B4, but that price was too high-Black has a clear advantage because of White's weaknesses) 23 R-K 1 B-N2 24 B-KN2 B X B 25 K X B Q-N 2 ! 26 Q-B4 R x N (Winning) 27 Q X R Q x Pch 2 8 P-K4 Q-Q6 2 9 Q-B4 (29 B-R3 Q-Q7ch) Q x Q 3 0 P X Q R X R, and White resigned.
After 11 Q-B2 Q-B2 (For 1 1 . . . Q-R4, see Denker-Benko in the Appendix), the game Sloth-Larsen, Denmark 1 97 1 , continued : 1 2 R-Q 1 KR-N 1 1 3 R-N 1 N-K4 1 4 N-KN5 B-QB 1 1 5 N/ 5-K4 N xN 1 6 B X N B-R6 17 P-N3 N-N 5 1 8 P-R4 P-B5 ! (Tactics dove tailing with strategy-on 1 9 P-N4 R X NP ! 20 R X R Q-B4 threaten ing mate and the Rook) 19 N-N5 Q-N3 20 P-K3 P X P 21 R X P
R-QB l (2 1 . . . R X P? 22 N-Q4) 22 Q-N l Q-B4! 23 R-N4 (23 B-R3 Q-B5 24 R-N4 Q-K7 and White cannot properly defend his KB2) 23 . . . N-B3 24 B-R3 N X B 25 Q x N (RXN is slightly better) 25 . . . Q-B7 (With an edge for Black) 26 Q X Q R X Q 27 R/ 1 -N l P-R4 2 8 B-N2 R/ 1 -QB l 29 N-Q4 B X N 3 0 P X B (30 R X B R X B) R-K7 (Black is clearly better. The endgame is quite interesting) 3 1 B-R3 R-R7 ! 3 2 B-N2 K-N2 3 3 R-Kl R-B7 3 4 R-N l R-Q7 3 5 P-R5 B-B4 36 B-B3 R X BP (And now Black i s winning) 37 R/ 1 -N2 QRX R 38 R X R R-B6 39 B-K l B-R6 40 B-B2 R-R6 41 B-K l P-B4 42 B-N4 R-R8ch 43 K-B2 P-N4 44 K-K3 K-B3 45 R-N3 R-R7 46 R-R3.
46 . . . R X P ! ! 47 R-R l (If 47 P-R6 B-B8 48 P-R7 B-B5 49 P-R8=Q R-K7ch 50 K-B3 P-N5ch and White is mated by 51 . . . R-K5; or if 49 R-Q3 R-R7 50 B-R3 B X P wins) 47 . . . B-N7 48 R-R2 P-R5 49 P x P P-B5ch, White resigned. Black made excellent use of his chances, even in positions that seemed drawish. An in structive game.
An attempt to improve the N-KR3 idea lies in the development of White's Queen Bishop to QN2 in order to oppose Black's strong King Bishop and neutralize its pressure. An example of this idea is Benko-Berry in the Appendix.
A similar attempt was made in Evans-DeFotis, U.S. Champion ship 1 972, but by a different order of moves: 1 P-Q4 N-KB3 2 P
QB4 P-84 3 P-QS P-QN4 4 P X P P-QR3 5 P X P B X P 6 P-KN3 P-Q3 7 B-N2 QN-Q2 8 N-KR3 P-KN3 9 P-N3. In order to ef fectuate this move White has had to postpone the development of his Queen Knight. The game continued : 9 . . . B-KN2 10 B-N2 0-0 11 0-0
11 . . . Q-N1?! (The natural 1 1 . . . Q-N3 is better) 1 2 Q-Q2 Q-N5 1 3 B-QB3 N-K5 14 B X N Q X B / 5 1 5 B X B K x B 1 6 N-B3 Q-Q5 17 KR-Q 1 Q x Q 1 8 R X Q (White has a slight edge) KR-N 1 1 9 R-N 1 R-N3 20 R/ 2-N2 B-B 1 2 1 N-B4 N-K4 22 N-Q3? ! N X N 2 3 P X N B-R3. The game i s equal and was eventually drawn. White's weak pawns prevent him from getting an active game. More games are needed to examine this idea.
So far, I know of only one other, G . Garcia-Peev, Cuba 1973, which, instead of 1 1 . . . Q-N 1 , continued 11 . . . Q-N3 1 2 Q-Q2 KR-N 1 1 3 B-QB3 (A measure against the possibility of . . . P-B5) R-R2? (This looks like a loss of time. Why not 1 3 . . . N-K 1 right away?) 14 R-K 1 N-K 1 15 N-R3 B X B 16 Q X B Q-N5 17 Q-N2 N-N 3 ( 1 7 . . . P-B5?!) 18 N-B2 Q-R4 19 QR-N 1 (White has a slight edge) B-B 1 20 P-QN4 !? N-R5 (20 . . . Q XRP!?) 2 1 Q-R3 P X P 22 R X P R X R 23 N X R R-N2 24 N-Q3 . White still has the slightly better chances ; he eventually won.
ES
Some Hungarian masters have come up with a new idea for White: after 1 P-Q4 N-KB3 2 P-QB4 P-B4 3 P-QS P-QN4 4 P x P P-QR3 5 P x P B X P 6 N-QB3 P-Q3 7 N-B3 P-N3 8 P-KN3 B-KN2,
the new idea is 9 B-R3!?, which aims to prevent Black's N-N5 and provide more activity for the King Bishop. After 9 . . . 0-0 10 0-0, there are three examples:
Novarovsky-Georgadze, Tbilisi 1 97 1 , cont inued 10 . . . Q-R4?!
(This does not work out too well. Black should probably postpone the development of the Queen) 1 1 R-K 1 QN-Q2 12 P-K4 N-N3 13 P-K5 ! N-K 1 (If 13 . . . P X P 14 N X P QN x P? 15 N xN N x N 1 6 N-B6 and wins) 1 4 B-B4 N-B5 1 5 Q-B 1 Q-B2 1 6 P X P P X P 1 7 B-R6 N-B3 1 8 B x B K X B 1 9 P-N 3 N-N 3 20 Q-N 2. White has a little the better of it, although the game was later drawn.
In F. Portisch-Korpas, Budapest 1 972, the continuation was 10 . . . QN-Q2 1 1 R-K1 N-N3 (Here 1 1 . . . P-R4!?, preparing . . . N-N5, has to be taken into consideration) 12 B-B4 B-B 1 ? (Better is 12 . . . N-B5 13 P-N 3 N-KR4, or 12 . . . KN-Q2, preparing . . . N-B5) 1 3 B-N2 N-R4 (N-B5) 1 4 B-B 1 B-Q2 1 5 P-K4 N-R5 1 6 P-K5, with a clearly superior position for White, which h e later
won.
Another example was L. Szabo-Vasiukov, Wijk aan Zee 1 973, which transposed to the previous game by a minor change in move order: 9 . . . QN-Q2 (instead of 9 . . . 0-0) 10 0-0 N-N3 1 1 R-K 1
0-0, and now the continuation was 12 B-N2?! Q-Q2 1 3 N-Q2 KR-N 1 14 Q-B2 B-N2 (P-B5) 15 P-K4 N-KN5 16 P-KR3 N-K4 1 7 P-B4 N/ 4-B5 18 N x N N x N 19 P-N3 B-Q5ch 20 K-R2 N-R6 (Black has an equal game) 21 Q-Q2 B-B 1 22 B-N2 Q-N2 23 N-Q 1 Q-N5 24 B-QB3 B X B 25 N X B N-N4 26 R-K3 R-R6 (And now Black stands better) 27 R-Q3 N x N 28 Q x N B-R3 29 Q x Q R X Q (29 . . . P X Q?! 3 0 R-Q4) 3 0 R/ 3-Q 1 P-R4 3 1 P-R4 K-N2 32 B-B3 K-B3 33 K-N2 P-B5 (The game is equal after the release of tension and the liquidation on the Queenside) 34 KR-N 1 P-K3 35 QP X P P X KP 36 P X P R X R 37 R X R R X Pch 3 8 K-N 1 B X P 39 R-N6 R-R8ch 40 K-N2 R-R7ch, drawn.
E6
Other attempts to get something more out of the White position have of course been made. For instance, after 1 P-Q4 N-KB3 2 P-QB4 P-B4 3 P-Q5 P-QN4 4 P X P P-QR3 5 P x P P-N3 6 N-QB3 B x P 7 P-KN3 P-Q3 8 B-N2 B-KN2, the game Barlay-Benko (see the game in the Appendix) continued 9 Q-R4ch?! QN-Q2 10 Q-R4, but without success for White.
A dubious idea after 1 P-Q4 N-KB3 2 P-QB4 P-B4 3 P-Q5 P QN4 4 P x P P-QR3 5 P X P B X P 6 P-KN3 P-N3 7 B-N2 P-Q3 8 N-QB3 B-KN2 was tried in Jones-Malagon, Skopje Olympiad 1 972: 9 P-K4?! 0-0 10 KN-K2 QN-Q2 1 1 0-0 Q-N 3 (White's early P-K4 and the resulting weakness of his Q3 should be exploited by 1 1 . . . N-K4) 12 Q-B2 KR-N 1 1 3 R-N 1 N-K4 14 R-Q 1 R-R2
1 5 P-KR3 Q-R4 16 P-B4 N-BS 17 B-B 1 N-Q2 1 8 K-R2 R/ 2-N2 19 P-N3 N-R6 20 B X N Q X B. Black stands very well and eventu ally won.
If Black tries to avoid the main variation for some reason, he cannot gain a satisfactory position. For instance, in a game Meleghegyi-Dr. Sallay, Budapest 1 972, Black left his QP unmoved for too long, which is rather dangerous when White fianchettoes his King Bishop: 1 P-Q4 N-KB3 2 P-QB4 P-B4 3 P-Q5 P-QN4 4 P X P P-QR3 5 P x P B X P 6 N-QB3 P-N3 7 N-B3 B-KN2 8 P-KN3 0-0?!
Black's pun ishment should serve as a lesson: 9 P-Q6 ! N-B3 1 0
B-N2 P X P 1 1 Q X P R-K 1 ? ! 1 2 Q X BP N-K5 1 3 N X N R X N 1 4
0-0! B X KP 1 5 R-K 1 B X N 1 6 RXR B X R 1 7 B X B, with an obvious superiority for White. This is surely not the kind of position Black hopes to obtain when he plays the Benko Gambit !