1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 g6 4 0-0 Bg7 5 c3
Since this is the only place where Black can meaningfully deviate after 3 ... g6 it is worth a word here about his alternatives and therefore implicitly about the likeli
hood that after 3 Bb5 it will be possible to reach the basic gambit position. For starters, the statistics show that 5 ... Nf6 is overwhelmingly the most popular
D a n g e r with t h e d 4 G a m bit
choice, being played in about 65% of all games from this position. Of the alterna
tives, 5 ... a6 has some following, based upon the notion that the presence of c3 ren
ders an exchange on c6 significantly less attractive for White than in most Ros
solimo positions. However, the move ... a6 is in itself weakening and after 6 Bxc6 dxc6 White's position seems quite attractive whether he chooses to permit the liq
uidation of his opponent's doubled pawns with 7 d4, or to tries to play against them with 7 d3. It also looks quite legitimate to attempt to get the black pieces to declare their intentions before making this choice - to this end 7 Qe2!? looks quite attractive. If Black then puts his c8-bishop to g4, White can switch to d3 systems.
Otherwise he can even throw in h3 before proceeding with d4.
In spite of its primarily positional character, this all looks very satisfactory. More critical is the most popular of the alternatives, 5 ... e5!? (Diagram 16).
Diagram 16 (W) Diagram 17 (B)
Here too there is a choice to be made between positional approaches and some
thing with more bite. However, for players keen to venture the subject matter of this chapter, there would seem to be a strong stylistic presumption in favour of the promising gambit 6 d4!? here. By way of encouragement, it is worth pointing out that a variant of this gambit which arises after 5 Re1 e5!? 6 c3 Nge7 7 d4 also enjoys reasonable popularity. But this is clearly a less enticing version since the value of the move 5 Re1 is open to debate, whilst ... Nge7 is not. Back to the pre
sent case, there is not space here to give a detailed treatment. Suffice to say that after 6 d4 cxd4 (6 ... exd4 7 cxd4 Nxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxd4?! 9 Nc3 Ne7 10 Bh6! should appeal to anyone keen to explore the critical lines later in this chapter!) 7 cxd4 exd4 8 Bf4 Nge7 9 Bd6! 0-0 10 Nbd2 (Diagram 17) White has excellent develop
ment and his occupation of the key square d6 definitely sets Black some problems in bringing out his remaining pieces. After 10 ... a6 1 1 Bc4 b5 12 Bb3 Bb7 13 Nb3,
Da n ge ro u s Wea p o n s : Anti-Sici l i a n s
Black can at least consider giving up the exchange with 1 3 ... Nxd5 1 4 Bxf8 Qxf8 15 exd5 when his bishop pair spearheads reasonable compensation. Therefore there might be a case against assisting Black's development in this way and instead try
ing 11 Bd3!? ready to meet 11...b5 with the immediate 12 Nb3. A favourite of Yan
demirov's, this has scored extremely well in practice and seems to me to offer a promising and enduring initiative for the pawn.
Looking a Little Deeper
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 g6 4 0-0 Bg7 5 C3 Nf6 6 d4!?
The material is split into three parts:
A: The Gambit Declined B: 6 ... Nxe4!?
C: 6 ... cxd4 7 cxd4 Nxe4
A) 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 g6 4 0-0 Bg7 5 c3 Nf6 6 d4!? {Diagram 18)
Diagram 18 (B) Diagram 19 {W)
I have already discussed in the introduction the importance of a 'gambit move' such as 6 d4 having intrinsic purpose in addition to laying down a challenge for the opponent. I also expressed confidence that this could be easily demonstrated, and the reasons are well worth examining thoroughly, since there seems to be a surprising lack of awareness by some exponents of the gambit of White's exciting possibilities here.
Da nger with t h e d 4 Ga m bit
6
. .. cxd4
Trying to decline the gambit with the immediate 6 ... d5?! looks still less convinc
ing. 7 Ne5!? looks promising, since Black is virtually obliged to play 7 ... Bd7 giving up with bishop pair with nothing to show for it after 8 Nxd7 Qxd7 9 e5, but it also seems highly implausible that Black should have enough compensation for the pawn after the very straightforward 7 exd5 Nxd5 8 dxc5. By contrast, 7 e5 is of course playable, but misses what is special about 6 d4. Both here and after the ex
change on d4 I find it strange that some players appear to believe that the most significant difference from the 'main line' 6 Rei 0-0 7 d4 d5 is not the unfortunate position of Black's king, but rather the availability of the ei-square so that after 7 e5 Ne4 there is the chance to embarrass the knight by playing 8 Nel . But this piece can be saved by playing ... h6, whilst 8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4 Qb6 IO Bxc6+ bxc6 11 f3 Bxe5 is also far from clear and another argument against playing in this way.
7 cxd4 d S
This is the most popular alternative to 7 .. . Nxe4, based on the assumption that if Black leaves the White centre unchallenged he will suffer for his lack of space with little to offer by way of compensation. This is certainly true of moves such as 7 ... 0-0, for example, when 8 d5 Nb8 9 Rei d6 IO h3 Nbd7 1 1 Nc3 Nc5 I2 Bf4 Qb6 I3 a4 aS I4 e5 Nfd7 IS Ra3 (IS exd6 looks even better) I5 ... dxe5 I6 Nxe5 NxeS I7 Bxe5 Bxe5 I8 Rxe5 Qf6 I9 Qe2 left White with a pleasant spatial plus and strong pressure against e7 in A.Lutikov-A.Arutiunov, Yerevan I977.
Perhaps the most reasonable way to decline the pawn, however, is to play 7 ... a6!?
(Diagram 19) since here there is no entirely cost-free route to the kind of squeeze which we witnessed above. Nonetheless, I like White's position after 8 Bxc6 (8 Bd3!? also looks quite plausible, whereas 8 e5 which has some following looks to me speculative and frankly rather unlikely) 8 ... dxc6 9 Nc3 Bg4! (important, as the routine 9 ... 0-0 10 h3! leaves this bishop lacking any promising squares) IO Be3 0-0 11 h3 Bxf3 I2 Qxf3 Qa5 13 Rfdi Rad8. In A.Volokitin-V.Shalimov, Alushta 2004, White achieved nothing special after the slightly lackadaisical 14 Racl . However, White could rather emphasize his spatial advantage with the more purposeful 14 a3!? intending b4, when Black has a rather passive defence to look forward to.
Returning to 7 ... d5 (Diagram 20):