1 d4 lLif6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 f3
Not even mentioned in Nunn� Chess Open-
grow in popularity over the next few years. The fact that the well prepared Summerscale, amongst others, has worked with 4 f3 is in dicative of the variation's soundness. Obvi ously White plans to erect a centre with pawns on f3, e4 and dS, a strategy very simi lar to the system with 5 f3. However, the difference here is that by declining the gam bit (missing out the moves 4 cxbS a6) White proceeds with development without permit ting Black the traditional queenside counter play. Of course Black is not put under any immediate pressure, but the a-file is not avail able and White, by addressing the centre so quickly, is ready to face a challenge involving ... e7-e6.
The natural response if Black is to gener ate counterplay by using the fl-a6 diagonal or by contesting the centre. There are two alter natives.
a) 4 ... b4?! closes the queenside while White still has his pawn on a2, thus leaving Black at the mercy of a well timed a2-a3. Meanwhile White has the makings of a for midable centre. After 5 e4 d6 we have two contrasting examples.
al) 6 a3 'if aS 7 ..te3 g6 8 ltJd2 i-g7 9 ttJb3 if a4 and now in D.Gurevich-Vasto, Chicago 1989 White could have justified his play thus far with 10 axb4! ifxb4+ 1 1 �d2 'iib7 12 tLie2! 0-0 13 tLic3 etc. White's knights control key squares on the queenside, with a future lLlb3-a5-c6 a possibility that Black must consider.
a2) In Summerscale-D'Costa, British Ch. 1999, White elected to keep his options open on the queenside, exploiting the early grip on the centre and a space advantage by prepar ing for a kingside offensive: 6 �e3 tLibd7 7 tLie2 a5 8 ltJg3 g6 9 �e2 ..tg7 10 i+'cl !?, when Black chose 10 ... h5 rather than be sub jected to a ready-made kingside attack in the case of 10 ... 0-0 1 1 ..th6 followed by the launch of the h-pawn. The game continued (10 ... h5) 1 1 0-0 'ii' c7 12 ltJd2 ..tb7 13 h3 l::ta6 14 f4! ..th6 15 ttJf3 ..tg7 16 ..td3 ttJh7 17 'ii'c2 0-0 18 l::tael a4 19 �cl! and White, almost primed to let loose with e4-e5 and/ or f4-f5, was clearly better. Moreover 19 ... l::tb6 20 'ife2 b3 2 1 a3 left every one of White's pieces ready for action on the kingside and half of Black's idling on the other wing.
b) 4 ... e6 has another go at White's centre. 5 e4 exd5 6 cxd5 c4. This thrust is seen in the 5 f3 variation after (1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 f3) 5 ... e6 6 e4 c4!?, but the dia gram position is significantly different in that
White's c-pawn has journeyed to dS, whereas
in the main line the pawn is distracted west ward: c2-c4xb5 etc. Consequently in the dia gram position White has a strong centre, thus making counterplay more difficult for Black
to create. 7 �e3 ..tb4+ 8 lLlc3 'ii'e7 9 'i'd2 d6 10 ltJge2 �d7 1 1 ltJd4 0-0 12 ..te2 tLia6 13 0-0 was excellent for White in S.Larsen U .Nielsen, Danish League 1994.
5 e4 d6
Again 5 ... e6 is possible. 6 ltJc3 and now: a) 6 ... d6 7 i.xc4 e5 wastes a tempo and is too passive. White responded immediately in Summerscale-G.Morris, Wales 2000: 8 f4! lL!bd7 9 tLif3 exf4 10 �xf4 a6 1 1 0-0 tLib6
Compared with Game 30 Black is already in dire straits. 12 e5! ltJh5 (12 ... tLixc4 13 exf6, or 12 ... dxe5 13 tLixe5 tLixc4 14 "ii'a4+ �d7 15 'ii'xc4) 13 l::tel!? tLixf4 14 exd6+ and White is winning. A sample line is 14 ... ..te6 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 ..td5! l::tc8 (16 ... tLifxd5 17 ltJxd5 �xd6 18 l::txe6+ �f7 19 lL!xb6 �xe6 20 'if d5+) 17 �b7 l::tb8 18 �c6+ �f7 19 ltJe5+ �g8 20 'iff3 'iff6 2 1 l::tadl etc. Instead the game ended 14 ... �e7 15 l::txe7+ �f8 16 ltJe5 'ii'xd6 17 l::txf7+ �g8 18 l::txf4 tLixc4 (18 ... 'ifxe5 19 l::te4) 19 l::txc4 'ii'xe5 20 l::te4 1-0.
b) 6 ... exdS 7 e5. Bringing about another similarity, this time with the line 4 cxb5 a6 5 f3 e6 6 e4 exdS 7 e5. Again the key difference is good news for White, since the knight is already on c3 (hitting d5). Consequently the
'usual' 7 ... 'iii e7 here meets with 8 if e2 ltJg8 9
lLlxd5. After 7 ... ttJh5 8 'i'xd5 ltJc6 White secures a safe advantage with either 9 ltJe4 or 9 f4 (both directed against 9 ... 'ii'h4+), while 9 e6!? looks fun. In Rabinovich-Gershon, Is-
rael 1997 Black tried to turn the move order to his advantage with 7 ... d4 8 exf6 'i'xf6 9 'We2+! 'if e6 10 tl:lb5 tl:la6 1 1 i+'xe6+ fxe6 12 i.xc4 d5 13 i.e2 e5 with a wall of pawns for the piece. However, materially speaking Black has only two pawns for the knight, and now 14 b3!, preventing 14 ... c4, would have been quite promising for White.
c) 6 ... i.b7 7 i.xc4 tl:lxd5 8 i.xd5 (8 exd5 'ifh4+) 8 ... exd5 9 exdS d6 10 tl:lge2 i.e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 tl:lg3 g6 was fine for Black in Gabriel-T aggatz, Germany 1997, but 8 tl:lxdS makes more sense, using d5 as an outpost.
6 ilxc4
White chose to post a knight on c4 in Chernosvitov-Boehle, Dortmund 1993. After 6 tl:la3 g6 7 tl:le2 i.g7 8 tl:lc3 0-0 9 tl:lxc4 i.a6 Black did not like the look of this piece, although the knight's replacement proved even stronger: 10 i.e2 i.xc4 1 1 i.xc4 tl:lbd7 12 f 4 l:lb8 13 0-0
13 ... l:lb4 14 'ii'e2 'iic7 15 a3 l:lbb8 16 .l:ta2! tl:lb6 17 i.b5 and White was simply too strong on the light squares, for which Black lacked sufficient play in compensation. 6 . . . g6 7 ll:le2 ilg7 8 0-0
The automatic 8 tl:lbc3 is another possibil ity. Reshevsky-Emst, Lugano 1987 continued 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 i.a6 10 tl:lb5 tl:lfd7 1 1 tl:lec3 tl:lb6 12 i.e2 tl:l8d7 13 a4 and Black was a little tied up on the queenside. White's sturdy centre rules out an attack on the e4-pawn and Black's pieces are not properly placed to
O th e r D e fe n c e s
challenge with ... e7-e6. After 13 ... 'ifb8 14 a5 tl:lc8 15 i+'a4 i+'b7 16 l:ta3!? (16 tl:lxd6? exd6 17 i.xa6 i+'xa6 18 'ifxd7 i.d4+) 16 ... .l:tb8 17 .l:tb3 White had succeeded in more than just taming Black's Benko queenside ambitions.
Notice that the impressive g2-f3-e4-d5 pawn chain needs minimal support and af fords White space in which to operate on both sides of the board. Black, meanwhile, does not enjoy the desired play in the more open position that often results from 4 cxb5 a6. There followed 17 ... tl:le5 18 tl:ld4 'ii'c7 (18 ... tl:lxf3+ 19 tl:lxf3 'i'xb3 20 i.xa6 i.xc3 21 'ifxb3 .l:txb3 22 bxc3 l:lxc3 23 i.h6 is not too clear because Black has a rook and two pawns for two bishops, but White's pieces are active) 19 i.xa6 cxd4 20 .l:txb8 'i'xb8 2 1 tl:le2 and Black w as struggling. Instead of 9 ... i.a6 Black should consider either knight to d7 followed by evicting the bishop from c4, a logical plan that exploits the 'natural' but in fact artificial placement of White's knights.
8 . .. 0-0 9 ll:lec3 ! ?
I like this set up. Clearly White wants a knight on c3, but this does not mean that the role should always go to the queen's knight. The c4-square is also important and White is advised to monitor/ occupy it with more than the bishop, and this can be done with tl:la3 (which also covers b5).
9 .. . ll:lbd7 1 0 a4
worth paying in return for the constant men ace of a4-a5, after which the often useful b6- square is no longer available to Black.
1 0 • • . .1:.bS
Introducing the possibility of ... l:tb4 to contest the c4-square. White carries on with his queenside strategy.
1 1 tt:'ia3
Notice that as well as increasing White's grip on bS - which Black cannot realistically cover with ... aJ-a6 because this creates a tar get and leaves a potential hole on b6 after a4- a5 - the knight on a3 does not get in the way of the dark-squared bishop, which White is holding back until an appropriate post be comes apparent.
1 1 . . . tl'ieS
Preparing a typical Benko manoeuvre aimed at (eventually) sending the knight to b4 or even leaving it on c7. The other advan tage, of course, is that the g7-bishop now has more light on the long diagonal.
1 2 'ifc2 tt:'ic7 1 3 i.g5
Tying Black down to the newly pinned e7- pawn.
1 3 .. . tl'ieS?!
Once White retreats his bishop the knight serves no other purpose on eS than as a tempo-gaining target for the f3-pawn. If Black wants to keep White busy 13 ... tiJb6 14 .te2 .ta6 is okay, when 15 tLiabS justifies White's pattern of development on the queenside and results in a pull in the middle-
game after the sensible 15 ... 'iWd7.
1 4 i.e2 ll:ia6 1 5 f4!
A well timed attack that switches attention to the kingside before Black's advancing knights become a problem. Now retreating with 15 ... ttJd7 gives White time for 16 tLiabS! (threatening ltJxa7-c6 etc.), so Black keeps going forward.
1 5 .. . tl'ig4 1 6 i.xg4 i.xg4 1 7 f5! ?
Having lured the bishop into the heart of his kingside White cuts off the escape route, introducing the threat of h2-h3, when the bishop has nowhere to run.
1 7 . . . gxf5 1 8 h3 i.h5 19 exf5 f6
Not a great way to save the stranded bishop since its partner is now locked away. Being reduced to closing in the traditionally powerful bishop is every Benko player's nightmare, but prefacing ... V-f6 with 19 ... .i.d4+ runs the risk of leaving Black's king without the necessary protection. For example after 20 Wh l f6 21 .th6 liJb4 22 'ii'e4 l:te8 23 'ii'h4 White wins as 23 ... .tf7 24 'ii'g4+ is final, while 2 1...l:te8 22 'ii'd3! threat ens both 23 'ii'xa6 and the deadly check on g3.
20 i.e3 'ifd7 2 1 tt:'ic4
Thanks to White's clever knight deploy ment both c3 and c4 offer perfect outposts, a factor that Black immediately hopes to ad dress.
21 . . • .l:.b4 22 'i'd3 l:tfbS 23 .l:.ae 1 0.c7 24
With his queenside well protected White is able to enjoy a considerable space advantage that gives him much more than his fair share of freedom both in the centre and on the kingside. Black has weaknesses on e6 and e7 and his once mighty dark-squared bishop is awful (the other bishop is not much better). In order to convert his advantages White needs to step up a gear and find an effective plan.
25 lt:la5?r
After 25 l:tf2 followed by doubling on the e-file Black is reduced to passivity. The text is aggressive but perhaps premature.
25 . . J:td4! 26 'it'g3 �hS?
Under the circumstances, of course, Black - a Benko expert - can be forgiven for be lieving that everything has gone wrong, par ticularly as White's last move homes in on the pinned, disgraced bishop. However, for better or worse Black has to hit out with 26 ... i.xdS! when White needs to find a breakthrough. 27 i.h6 lbe8 28 lDxdS l:txdS, for example, seems to hold for Black.
27 lt:\c6
Now White gets what he wants.
27 . . . J:!.eS 2S lt:\xd4 cxd4 29 lt:\e2 'if xa4 30 J:l.f4 lt:\xd5 31 l:l.xd4 'it'b5 32 'iff2 a5 33 lt:\f4 lt:\b4
After 33 ... lbxf4 34 'if xf4 White is well on top. The problem for Black - apart from material down! - is that he is playing without his g7-bishop.
O th e r D e fe n c e s
34 ll:ie6 .txe6 3 5 J:!.xe6 ll:id3 3 6 'it'f1
White is winning. The inevitable outcome is a matter of time and technique.
36 . . . 'if c5 37 'it'xd3 'it'xc1 + 3S 'it'd 1 'it'xb2 39 J:!.dxd6 J:!.gS 40 J:!.d2 'it'b4 41 �h1 i.fS 42 J:l.d4! 'it'b7 43 l:l.g4 J:!.xg4 44 'it'xg4 'iib1 + 45 �h2 'ifbS+ 46 'ifg3 'it'b5 47 'iff2 'it'bS+ 4S g3
Now that White's king position has been tidied up it is time to use the 'extra' rook.
4S . . . a4 49 J:l.a6 'it'b5 50 J:!.aS �g7 5 1 'ifc2!
Threatening 52 l:txa4.
51 . . . 'ifb3 52 'it'xb3 axb3 53 J:!.bS �f7 54 J:!.xb3 i.h6
The bishop finally enjoys freedom, but now the game is effectively over because the rook is too strong.
55 �g2 .td2 56 �f3 h5 57 J:!.d3 i.c1 5S J:!.d4 .tg5 59 h4 .tc1 60 g4!
Creating a passed pawn.
60 . . . hxg4+ 61 J:!.xg4 e6 62 �e4 i.h6 63 J:l.g6 .tfS 64 h5 exf5+ 65 �xf5 1 -0
The Budapest Gambit is tricky and de signed to bully White from the very begin ning. I am recommending 4 i.f 4 because if Black insists on mixing it White - ultimately - has the most fun, whereas Black's most precise line gives White the bishop pair and a comfortable advantage.
Game 28
Stohl-Socko